From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Mar 1 08:41:40 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 02:41:40 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-neoliberalism notes Message-ID: <24a3f48b-991f-6dac-d16a-9dbfc3ac6402@forestfield.org> Some items to consider for News from Neptune. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Pn9wAsisU -- Trump attacks Bernie Sanders as socialist but then: signs the 2018 Farm bill[1] where food stamps account for much of the cost of the bill (per https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/trump-signs-2018-farm-bill), launches a $1.5T infrastructure bill (per https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-unveila-1point5-trillion-infrestructure-plan/4249532.html). This makes supporters of so-called "global free trade" nervous (per https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tariffs-free-trade/) and calls Trump "our socialist president" (per https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-teach-ocasio-cortez-a-thing-or-two-about-socialism/2018/07/27/f4672a2e-9102-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html) Sen. Ron Johnson, Republican: > This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: > Commissars deciding who's going to be granted waivers, commissars in the > administration figuring out how they're going to sprinkle around > benefits. [1] By the way, part of this bill will legalize hemp as an industrial crop for the US...again. Apparently when the elites want hemp for ropes or other industrial purposes hemp cultivation is legal in the US like it was during WW2 (see the 1942 US government film "Hemp for Victory" -- https://archive.org/details/Hemp_for_victory_1942_FIXED). But this change comes after 80 years of hemp cultivation illegality for no good reason. Some lessons in how to report things from "trusted media" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56-6rp4nzmE -- RT's "journalism crash course" showing a few principles from the media we're told to trust: - "Always fact check" like Forbes didn't in "Are Lemons A Sign Of Upward Mobility Around The World?" https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizzysaxe/2019/02/14/want-to-find-a-rich-person-in-russia-look-for-the-lemons/ by Lizzy Saxe. Any web search tells you the average price of lemons in Russia is $0.30/lemon. But Forbes repeated a claim from Harold Edwards, president and CEO of Limoneira, described as "a gigantic, fascinating company that has been growing lemons and other citrus fruits in California since 1893": Forbes quoted Edwards saying: > ...Wealthy Russians really like to incorporate lemons into their > lifestyle. It communicates to people that they have means to be able to > afford them. They call it the bling of produce. but this quote doesn't appear in this Saxe article now. Instead I see an unbacked claim that: > Harold [Edwards] noticed that "Russians consume a lot more lemons per > capita than many other parts of the world. I was wondering, is that > because they're big tea drinkers? Why are they using so many lemons?" and the rationale (still unbacked with figures or pointers to other data) is that: > As Limoneira started to dig into this, the team found that lemons that > were perceived to be higher quality - California has a certain caché - > were being purchased far more than lemons in general: "We then started > to see similar things in parts of Southeast Asia. I thought it was just > because there were a lot more restaurants that were cropping up, a lot > more retail shopping opportunities, more disposable income. I thought > that was driving all this demand, and certainly, that is part of it. > But it's also become an aspirational item... as more people are starting > to have money in these burgeoning middle-class economies, you're > starting to see a lot more consumption from them because they can." So Forbes appears to have shifted the attempt at making something look good by association from Edwards' company to the state of California. This Saxe article now bears a paragraph which reads: > This article was updated on 2/17/19 to more accurately reflect social > status in Russia. RT pointed this out and said "So you won't have to backtrack". - (quoting RT) "Do your homework" before going live unlike Bari Weiss, staff editor from the New York Times, who didn't do her homework before her recent interview with Joe Rogan (tv game show host, comic, and former star of "Newsradio"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T77uFdw9HJA -- Joe Rogan episode with Bari Weiss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS-sxJFn6O0 -- Jimmy Dore show on this episode pointing out how she can get away with talking points she doesn't understand but never gets questioned on because the US-friendly media agrees with the talking points. Here's the telling excerpt from Joe Rogan's show: > Bari Weiss: So who's in [the Democratic Party running for US president] > right now? We have Kamala, Kristen Gillibrand > > Joe Rogan: Tulsi Gabbard. > > Bari Weiss: Ho ho ho -- monstrous. She's an Assad toady. > > Joe Rogan: What does that mean? What does "toady" mean? > > Bari Weiss: She is a -- I think that I used that word correctly. Jamie > [an off-camera show assistant] can you check what toady means? I think > it means what I think it means. > > Joe Rogan: She's an Assad sycophant, is that what you're saying? > > Bari Weiss: Yeah, that's pro--[the first syllable of "proven"] known about her. > > Joe Rogan: Like, what did she say that qualifies her? > > Bari Weiss: We have to look -- I don't remember the details. > > Joe Rogan: We probably should say that before we say that about her. We > should probably read it, rather. > > Bari Weiss: Well, I have read it. - (As RT puts it) "No quotation marks = Plagiarism" unlike what the New York Times' ex-editor Jill Abramson was accused of. Abramson went on CNN's "Reliable Sources" and talked about this with host Brian Stelter after seeing examples of her work versus the sources she (clearly) copied from without attribution in her book "Merchants of Truth" (oh, the irony): > Brian Stelter: Wouldn't these examples meet the Times' definition of > plagiarism? [...] > > Jill Abramson: It would meet the the Times' definition of things that > should be promptly corrected. [...] And sometimes, you know, a quote > isn't attributed. Labor: More teachers strikes are starting and ending quickly (with virtually zero news coverage) because management is afraid of encouraging others to strike https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/22/oakland-teacher-strike-enters-second-day-negotiations-resume/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/24/oakland-teachers-strike-talks-break-down-sunday-third-day-of-picketing-planned-monday/ -- East Bay Times coverage of the Oakland, CA teachers strike https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooe1TG_a7GA -- Jimmy Dore Show talks about a teachers strike in West Virginia which lasted no more than a week, and an Oakland, CA strike which started January 18 and continues now. https://socialistworker.org/2019/01/18/oakland-teachers-wont-wait-for-a-strike-deadline starts: > EDUCATORS FROM five Oakland high schools and one middle schools are > planning a one-day wildcat strike today to demand that a city swimming > in tech money provide the funding and salaries that its schools and > teachers deserve. > > The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) is offering teachers an > insulting 5 percent raise over five years — in a region where the cost > of living has risen 14 percent in the past five years. > > The Oakland Education Association (OEA) is demanding a 12 percent > increase over three years. Like the United Teachers Los Angeles members > currently on strike down the coast, Oakland educators are also fighting > for smaller class sizes and hiring more nurses, psychologists and > counselors. These teachers strikes seem to want the same things: - roughly 12% pay raises over years, - class size reductions (in Los Angeles county there's no upper-bound on class size), - and more support services for students. and the teachers are winning these strikes, which prompted this segment of conversation on the Jimmy Dore show: > Jimmy Dore: The teachers have been winning every one of these strikes. I > can't believe that every teachers union doesn't go on strike > immediately. Right? > > Ron Placone: If this was amplified more I think they would. A new Medicare for All bill: Rep. Pramila Jayapal's (D-WA) HR1384 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384 -- where one can find the bill once it is published. Right now there's more said about the bill than we can learn from reading the bill. So some of what follows (despite having been announced) is speculative: - HR1384 currently has 106 cosponsors. But remember that HR676 had a lot of cosponsors while the Democrats never brought it to the floor for a vote even when the Democrats had a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and Democratic Party Pres. Obama was in the White House. Even then some Democrats (such as former Senator Al Franken) never cosponsored what was known as HR676 at that time. Apparently they chose to use that power to bring the US "ObamaCare" ("RomneyCare" by another name) -- an HMO-written plan in which Americans would be forced to buy into an HMO-run plan or pay a penalty. Thus the number of cosponsors doesn't really tell us anything. - Then-HR676 was very highly regarded then. Physicians for a National Healthcare Program (PNHP.org) are strongly pro-universal single-payer advocates who rightly argued for HR676. It's unclear why Sen. Bernie Sanders didn't make a Senate bill that was a copy of the text of HR676 with a Senate bill number, or why HR1384 needed to be written at all. People now pushing for HR1384 are notably quiet on why HR1384 had to be written. - As I write this, the text of HR1384 is unavailable (check https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text for the latest). That page returns "As of 02/28/2019 text has not been received for H.R.1384". We're told that this bill's text is over 100 pages, far longer than HR676 was. - https://theintercept.com/2019/02/27/medicare-for-all-bill-congress-pramila-jayapal/ a recent Intercept article by Ryan Grim, is basically an ad for HR1384 and doesn't give answers as to why HR676 needed to be scrapped, why Sanders' Medicare for All plan exists, and why we needed HR1384. There's also no mention of what the Democrats did with their Congressional power when HR676 was available to be brought to the floor for a vote. - HR1384 will take 2 years to fully take effect: within one year of passage, everyone under 19 or over 55 will be automatically enrolled. Everyone else can buy into this plan or stay with their current HMO. Within 2 years, everyone else will be automatically enrolled. But it's not clear why this is structured in this way. Every day some American isn't automatically enrolled is a day the HMOs can push them to not support the plan. Sanders' Medicare for All plan enrolls citizens in stages across 4 years. When Medicare came into being the US was able to enroll millions without the aid of computers. Obama media deals are coming together https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j39zCIT11HQ -- Following a deal they made last year, the Obamas are working with Netflix for an undisclosed sum (RT repeats unattributed estimate of over $100 million). Their "mission: to empower new and diverse voices" which investigative journalist Ben Swann says is more likely to be "new voices saying the same thing" as what was said before. Susan Rice also joined Netflix's board last year. > They simply want to find the next voice to say the same thing that's > been said. The problem again is this: we have a media culture in the > United States that does not really look for diversity of voices; if > you're that expecting to come out of this, you're going to be sorely > disappointed. There's not going to be diversity in terms of messaging or > voices, [...] when they use that term they simply mean more minorities > and more people who are pushing their world view. That sounds like what I'd expect as well: the scam of diversity will translate to more blacks, women, Latinos, etc. saying things that reinforce neoconservative and neoliberal thought -- more people echoing the need to invade Venezuela on the pretense that Maduro is a 'bad man', for instance. What you won't hear are more people pushing to get out of the US's many wars and occupations, a call for a national jobs program funded by cutting the military budget at least in half, and so on. This will end up adding to the evidence that the change in US President is far more minor than it is played up to be: Trump is a weak president who will carry out Obama-style invasion/occupation war policy including keeping with Obama's "not looking back but looking forward" non-aggression pact with previous administrations which insulates members of the G.W. Bush administration from being tried and possibly imprisoned for invading Iraq in 2003, for instance). Yemen: Countries bombing Yemen now pledge to donate aid to Yemen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-vWYj4Jjc -- RT reports: "$2.6B of aid coming into Yemen during a special 1-day conference. More than half of the donations come from the US, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates -- countries which put Yemeni in the dire position they're in now." Pledges (yet to be paid): SA: $500 million UAE: $250 million USA: (over time) $750 million Michael Maloof puts it bluntly: > They're buying people off. There was supposed to be a conference in > Sweden to have a cease-fire. Nothing was agreed to. The war goes on. > Saudis are continuing to bomb civilian areas in spite of showing this > outward sign -- by the way, that money is only a commitment; they > haven't paid anything. Nina Paley open letter to the University of Illinois on her deplatforming at Ebertfest, Arcadia, and consequences at the University of Illinois http://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/02/28/open-letter-to-the-university-of-illinois/ -- Nina Paley's open letter https://www.uillinois.edu/about/guiding_principles -- University of Illinois' "Guiding Principles" Censorship: Project Veritas shows Facebook has "deboosting" tools which they use against pages that don't echo a liberal line https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoOrr_W2fC4 -- Facebook confirms "deboosting" but calls Project Veritas' investigative journalism a stunt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPOc-AWneRc -- James O'Keefe asking Facebook employees questions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYSmFI9GAAs -- Facebook insider speaks out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMtbba2fD4M -- Facebook will "classify posts as 'hate speech', limiting live streams from Facebook, and suppressing the reach of posts" says this report. A whistleblower spoke with Project Veritas about this. You might remember Project Veritas' undercover camera work which exposed Twitter employees bragging about the ways in which they can restrict an account holder from being read -- outright banning them from the site, "shadowbanning" the user's posts so the user doesn't realize their posts aren't triggering update notifications in followers feeds (thus reducing the odds the posts will be read), and downranking the posts in searches. Project Veritas also showed videos of CNN employees explaining how they were in the tank for Hillary Clinton and CNN anchor Van Jones saying Russiagate was a "nothing burger" (the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians and this collusion somehow put Trump in the White House had no substance to back them up) (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qSPA9WRJec). In this instance, Project Veritas interviewed a whistleblower who worked on allegations of copyright and trademark infringement and says she also noticed "other things were going on on accounts". She alleges that pages including "conservative" content are being "deboosted" -- followers were not being notified of updates to pages with conservative views expressed. This is the same as what Twitter called "shadowbanning". In some cases content from a user's Facebook pages were removed without letting users know about the censorship. She said that this was particular to conservatives: > First I was wondering whether this was something that -- I had a couple > working theories -- I was like maybe this is an independent versus > mainstream thing. Maybe independent figures on the left are experiencing > the same kind of deboosting. But I didn't see that. I looked at The > Young Turks' page, I looked at Colin Kaepernick's page, none of them had > received the same deboost. And Facebook is tagging pages with terms it doesn't like as "hate speech" and "offensive". But only for conservative pages; the effect is quite one-sided for now. And this whistleblower is not the first to allege this is going on. Facebook also confirmed she was fired for working with Project Veritas, so we're sure she was a former Facebook employee as she claimed. Recall also that Alphabet and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt famously told an audience that Google had plans to "derank" RT's entries in the search engine. This means that searches which would normally return RT-related pages high in the listing (making them more likely to be seen on the first page of search results) would begin listing those entries lower down the list, possibly only showing up after a user went to another page of entries thus making them less likely to be selected. RT also points out that this censoring behavior is directly opposed to what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg promised Congress he didn't want to do. But the truth remains that publishing through any third-party service grants that party power over one's freedom to speak and be heard. So in the short term we need to encourage people to stop hosting their publications with only one service and instead to host with multiple services simultaneously; this will reduce the censorial power any one service has over one's speech. Also, we need multiple Internet services everywhere including state-owned services all sharing the same community-owned networks. And we need Internet services as a right, not a privilege only available to those who can afford it from the marketplace. The market is not interested in guaranteeing one's freedom of speech and they have no obligation to do so, no matter how many people want to call Facebook, Twitter, et al a public marketplace of ideas. Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSt0jEC9pEM -- British anti-Islamic activist Tommy Robinson has been banned from Facebook and Instagram claiming: > When ideas and opinions cross the line and amount to hate speech that > may create an environment of intimidation and exclusion for certain > groups in society -- in some cases with potentially dangerous offline > implications -- we take action. Tommy Robinson's Facebook page has > repeatedly broken these standards, posting material that uses > dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims. He has > also behaved in ways that violate our policies around organized hate. But don't think this means military contractors Facebook/Instagram pages, propagandistic media outlets (like Washington Post which recently got caught misleading about Richard Branson's Venezuela concert), or any politician who espouses neoconservative or neoliberal views (such as Hillary Clinton) will lose their Facebook/Instagram content. Related: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-facebook-war-on-hate-speech -- Vanity Fair's all too kind article on Facebook's Monika Bickert, a former federal prosecutor and Harvard Law School graduate, who has "real power to dictate free-speech norms for the entire world" but is faced with a dilemma on how to censor posts containing "men are scum" without "allow[ing] more attacks on the basis of gender": > When Facebook mass-deletes “men are scum,” it’s not thanks to top-down > bias at the company, or some rogue men’s-rights Facebooker taking his > stand against misandry. Nor is it a boneheaded “enforcement error” > caused by one of Facebook’s 15,000 human content moderators around the > world. The posts get removed because of one of Monika Bickert’s > well-intentioned, though possibly doomed, policies. Nowhere will you find any definition of the term "hate speech" (though the term is used many times throughout the article) or any thought given to whether Facebook should censor in the first place. We're supposed to pity poor Facebook for taking on this "well-intentioned" policy. Big media outlets merge again: AT&T buys Time-Warner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e17LQMY0dpE -- interview with Media Studies Professor Robin Anderson. Media: How to watch the media -- don't buy into their newsreaders' tears, outrage, and other emotional outbursts. Wait for the facts to come in first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIdHyF-Zssw -- RT's Caleb Maupin reminds us to look past the newsreaders own reactions to stories and wait for the facts to come in before gauging how to respond. Recently actor Justin "Jussie" Smollett faked an attack on himself in order to manufacture sympathy and negotiate increased payment on his TV show "Empire". Smollett tried to tie the alleged attack to racism, homophobia (Smollett is gay), and Pres. Trump. At the time of the initial news, there was considerable outrage from commentators and newsreaders. But the media has a bad track record of evaluating such events instead choosing to grandstand and virtue signal instead of reporting the facts of the case: - Rachel Maddow choked up when reading about child migrants being put into Texas shelters blaming the policy on Pres. Trump. The narrative fit the media's immediate need: look like Pres. Trump is uniquely horrible and needs to be opposed. It turns out that a similar policy existed under Pres. Obama. A famous picture also circulated online around the same time showed a migrant child in a cage, alleging to be a fair representation of how Trump treated child migrants. It turns out that the photo was taken during the Obama administration. - Omran, a young boy from Aleppo, was shown with dust and blood on his face sitting (alive) and the media were eager to use the image for Syrian war propaganda. CNN's host of a segment (labeled "Crisis in Syria") was typical; she said (choked up throughout): > What strikes me is we shed tears, but there are no tears here. He > doesn't cry once. That little boy is in total shock. He's stunned. This > is Omran. He's alive. We wanted you to know. It turns out that Omran, a minor, was photographed before he was given first aid. His father was upset at him being used in this way. CNN didn't interview him after he was cleaned up or ask his father for permission to use the child's image. Lara Logan was CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent from 2006-2018. She was on the Mike Drop podcast and had this to say about media manipulation: > How do you know you're being lied to? How do you know you're being > manipulated? How do you know there's something not right with the > coverage? When they simplify it all and there's no gray. We seem to be > doing, today, is substituting the law and the courts for trial by > media. Economy: What does austerity do? How did the US get Pres. Trump? And what does debt cancellation have to do with this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSvcB55R8jM -- Jimmy Dore interview with Michael Hudson, author of "...and forgive them their debts" on how Wall Street gave us Trump, and how austerity is the opposite of what poor people need. (36m04s) Highly recommended viewing as this is quite informative as to how we arrived at where we are and what's coming up. Russiagate: Still no evidence of conspiracy theory alleging collusion between Trump campaign and Russians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUZAs52tpVA -- RT's report on how much of a non-story the Cohen testimony is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbtDt9abaX0 -- Aaron Maté with Cenk Uygur https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hgWSrvXxzs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1itMF_BYeU -- Jimmy Dore show with Aaron Maté on Russiagate: Michael Cohen says he has no evidence of collusion, rightly points out that it's not his job to debunk Buzzfeed (which Mueller did when he told the country not to expect much from his ongoing investigation). So we've got Mueller debunking Russiagate, Cohen debunking Russiagate, and that would seem to mean it's safe to say there was never anything to Russiagate. And there's absolutely no evidence that WikiLeaks told Roger Stone anything on the phone. WikiLeaks also says they never had a phone conversation with Stone, but this could be easily disproven by phone records if anyone cared to do the proper journalistic legwork of looking it up. Cohen said this advanced knowledge of the DNC emails he describes between Roger Stone, Donald Trump, and him in the room listening to the speakerphone all happened on the 18th or 19th of July 2016. But anything Stone says he had ahead of time from WikiLeaks was provably public knowledge: there's footage of Assange on ITV.com on June 12, 2016 saying: > We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication, > that is correct. there is also a tweet from WikiLeaks posted July 7, 2016 at 7:52PM: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/751202198101626882 > Have more than 1,000,000 followers? Want early access to our pending > Hillary Clinton publications? DM @WikiLeaks or their post from July 22, 2016 at 10:33AM: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756501723305414656 > Did you know our pending DNC release contains 5,245 emails about Trump > 2,893 about Hillary Clinton & 2,235 on Bernie Sanders? #feelthebern and WikiLeaks recently reminding us that (posted February 27, 2016): https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1100820252450082818 > STATEMENT on Michael Cohen testimony to Congress: WikiLeaks publisher > Julian Assange has never had a telephone call with Roger Stone. > WikiLeaks publicly teased its pending publications on Hillary Clinton > and published > 30k of her emails on 16 March 2016. > https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ Thomas Massie (R-KY) asked "Did you know this was public knowledge in June?" but that didn't stop corporate media and corporate-friendly media from pushing Russiagate further. So this is yet another Congressional bit of theatre without substance, just like the rest of Russiagate. But does that mean Russiagate will die? Aaron Maté points out on the Jimmy Dore show: > Aaron Maté: It's a great example of how the conspiracy theory works and > Matt Taibbi was prescient because if you watch CNN today, if you read > the headlines they say, you know, Trump was told in advance of the > WikiLeaks emails. They omit, exactly as you're saying, they omit the > fact that these emails were already publicly announced by WikiLeaks. > They just don't mention it. And that is how this conspiracy theory about > Trump and Russia worked for over two years -- they just leave out > anything that is countervailing. And to get it you have to go to places > like Jimmy Dore, or follow the right people on Twitter. But if you watch > the corporate media -- > > Jimmy Dore: Even the non-corporate media [carries the Russiagate > narrative] > > Aaron Maté: Even the non-corporate media, yeah, it's true. > > Jimmy Dore: Even the non-corporate media pushes this exact narrative. > > Aaron Maté: It's true. Anybody -- there is an incentive to peddling this > conspiracy theory because it's been decided it's the way we're resisting > Trump. And it benefits too many powerful people who -- happen to decide > that it benefits their agenda for different reasons. But the point is, > it's propaganda. And it works like this, it works by omission. By > leaving out the countervailing facts that undermine the entire premise. Who benefits and how? Russiagate is still so valuable to multiple parties: Russian sanctions need justification somehow, Hillary Clinton needs a way to explain her second loss (and to a political novice at that -- I doubt many people knew who Barack Obama was when he was Illinois' junior senator), Buzzfeed (which stands by its story) is going to need an explanation for continuing to publish lies, rumors of war with Russia helps grease payments to war profiteers. One of the broadcasters uncritically pushing Russiagate -- Democracy Now. Here's what DN had to say in In https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/28/headlines/michael_cohen_tells_congress_trump_committed_multiple_criminal_acts DN called Cohen's testimony "Michael Cohen’s historic testimony". But it's really not historic because there's no substance to the testimony. https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/28/a_criminal_in_the_oval_office > AMY GOODMAN: Later in the hearing, Republican Congressmember Thomas > Massie of Kentucky questioned Michael Cohen. > ---start of clip of testimony--- > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: You said—and this is also in your testimony—in the > days before the Democratic convention, you became privy to a > conversation that some of Hillary Clinton emails would be leaked. Is > that correct? > > MICHAEL COHEN: Correct. > > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: OK. Was that in—you said late July. Do you know the > exact day? > > MICHAEL COHEN: I believe it was either the 18th or the 19th, and I would > guess that it would be on the 19th. > > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: But it was definitely July? > > MICHAEL COHEN: I believe so, yes. > > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Do you know that was public knowledge in June? This > was Mr. Assange. And I’d like to submit this—unanimous consent to submit > this for the record. > > REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Without objection, so ordered. > > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Mr. Assange reported to the media on June 12th that > those emails would be leaked. So, I’m not saying you have fake news; I’m > saying you have old news, and there’s really not much to that. > ---end of clip of testimony--- > AMY GOODMAN: Marcy Wheeler, he’s saying that a lot of people knew, that > Julian Assange had said it publicly. > > MARCY WHEELER: Julian Assange said publicly that he had material on > Hillary Clinton. What Julian Assange never said publicly is “I’m going > to drop it at the beginning of the DNC.” And so, what is interesting > about Cohen’s story—and, to be clear, it’s unlikely that he really did > speak directly with Julian Assange. We know from a bunch of Stone’s > other claims that when he claimed to be speaking directly with Assange, > he instead was speaking with a cutout, like Jerome Corsi or like Randy > Credico. > > But what it appears happened is that Stone informed Trump precisely when > the emails were going to be dropped. And that, as far as I know, is not > something that has been made public before, and is particularly > interesting because if the call happened on July 19th, Stone was meeting > with Nigel Farage at the RNC that day, and he’s one of the people that > it was clear Mueller seemed interested in finding out whether was a > go-between between people in the U.K. who knew about the emails and > Roger Stone. So, it is new information. It’s consistent with Roger > Stone’s indictment, although it means, in the indictment, Mueller is > referring to the president himself as a senior campaign official. It’s > more specific than we had ever known before. But this is more of Marcy Wheeler trying to manufacture a case for Russiagate that isn't there: - It's not particularly relevant if Assange told anyone outside WikiLeaks when the DNC emails would begin to be published or if that date coincided with the Hillary DNC rally. - Wheeler insists something "interesting" occurred "if the call happened on July 19th" but the DNC emails had been talked about publicly prior to that. None of this is contradicted by Amy Goodman. Goodman has been dutifully reporting Russiagate lies without clarification or contradiction, as I have pointed out in previous editions of my notes. Wheeler has been making a lot of claims about Russiagate for quite some time (including in The Real News interviews with Aaron Maté) -- all complicated theories backed with anonymous sources and no references to published facts. This is no different: "Stone informed Trump precisely when the [DNC] emails were going to be dropped" is evidenceless assertion. There is no new information here and nothing "more specific than we had ever known before". Propaganda to lay the groundwork for invasion/occupation: Venezuela edition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk7gkZiXWbA -- Jimmy Dore show discusses Jorge Ramos' propagandistic piece for Univision showing Venezuelans eating out of garbage truck as if this fairly represents what's going to Venezuelans, later tacitly admitting to selling out for regime change war. No mention of US sanctions against Venezuela either. This piece includes Aaron Maté as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny5KFTLyiRw -- How propaganda works with analysis on Venezuelan coup, fake Red Cross in Venezuela lighting USAID truck on fire and blaming their opponents, and more. This includes Aaron Maté as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhaTFe5X9EM -- Jimmy Dore show with Aaron Maté debunking CNN's pro-coup propaganda. The Maduro government has problems and Venezuelans have their differences with that administration, but calling Maduro a dictator is just propaganda. Venezuelan invasion coming soon says Russian Security Council Secretary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw_ghxacAqE -- Russia's security council warns of Venezuelan invasion aimed at toppling Pres. Maduro. US troop movements -- special ops in Puerto Rico, army in Colombia -- are precursors to military invasion: Nikolai Patrushev, secretary, Russian Security Council as quoted by RT: > Other facts clearly indicate that the Pentagon is strengthening its > troops in the region to oust legally elected President Maduro. The > Venezuelan people understand this well. Hence, their reaction, their > refusal to accept the goods from the aggressor country and support their > president. Canadian police are tracking "negative behavior" in a "risk" database https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzdp5v/police-in-canada-are-tracking-peoples-negative-behavior-in-a-risk-database -- > Police, social services, and health workers in Canada are using shared > databases to track the behavior of vulnerable people -- including minors > and people experiencing homelessness -- with little oversight and often > without consent. Documents obtained by Motherboard from Ontario's > Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) through > an access to information request show that at least two provinces -- > Ontario and Saskatchewan -- maintain a "Risk-driven Tracking Database" > that is used to amass highly sensitive information about people's lives. > Information in the database includes whether a person uses drugs, has > been the victim of an assault, or lives in a "negative neighborhood." > > The Risk-driven Tracking Database (RTD) is part of a collaborative > approach to policing called the Hub model that partners cops, school > staff, social workers, health care workers, and the provincial > government. Information about people believed to be "at risk" of > becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian > agencies and police and is added to the database when a person is being > evaluated for a rapid intervention intended to lower their risk levels. > Interventions can range from a door knock and a chat to forced > hospitalization or arrest. Data from the RTD is analyzed to identify > trends -- for example, a spike in drug use in a particular area -- with > the goal of producing planning data to deploy resources effectively, and > create "community profiles" that could accelerate interventions under > the Hub model, according to a 2015 Public Safety Canada report. The database claims to be "de-identified" by removing people's names and birthdates but this is not confirmed and this practice is deceptively effective. It's very difficult to successfully remove enough data from a database and truly hide who is being described in the data (a process called "anonymization" or making data about people anonymous). In 2006 AOL published its users search queries, ostensibly to help other search engine developers understand what people look for and help develop better search software. AOL anonymized the data by removing IP addresses and usernames and then assigning fake IDs to the queries. But reporters Michael Barbro and Tom Zeller successfully identified 62-year-old widow Thelma Arnold (given fake ID 417729) from Lilburn, Georgia. The reporters examined clues in her searches and learned she had been looking up medical information for her friends (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak and https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html for more). User 927 from the same AOL dataset also provoked interest -- this user's bizarre search history (including "human mold", "testicle festivals", "tormented/dying elmo", and "j. edgar hoover") inspired a play (called "User 927" written by Katharine Clark Grey in Philadelphia) and some memes. In 2015 we learned that researchers at MIT and Université catholique de Louvain had analyzed data on 1.5 million cellphone users over 15 months and found that one only needs 4 points of reference to uniquely identify 95% of cellphone users.[1] From https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/how-hard-it-de-anonymize-cellphone-data > In other words, to extract the complete location information for a > single person from an “anonymized” data set of more than a million > people, all you would need to do is place him or her within a couple of > hundred yards of a cellphone transmitter, sometime over the course of an > hour, four times in one year. A few Twitter posts would probably provide > all the information you needed, if they contained specific information > about the person’s whereabouts. Hence you are better off not giving people or organizations data to analyze in the first place, rather than relying on them to anonymize data they choose to publish. [1] Perhaps now you will understand why these devices are more honestly called "trackers" -- that's what they chiefly do, not make/take phone calls. Pushing for poor-quality jobs, gentrification: Influential people push for Amazon to reconsider New York https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/nyregion/amazon-hq2-nyc.html https://www.cnet.com/news/new-york-city-makes-its-pitch-again-for-amazons-hq2 -- Amazon said they wouldn't go to New York for their second headquarter location ("HQ2") but "the CEOs of Mastercard, Warby Parker, Goldman Sachs, Tishman Speyer and Jetblue, among others" are asking for Amazon to reconsider that and come to New York after all and soon will publish an open letter to this effect in the New York Times. -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 1 14:46:28 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Harvey, foremost scholar on Marxism, on China and capitalism, going forward. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Thank you, I especially like the second podcast by David Harvey, in addition to the first, in reference to China. Harvey’s analysis of the labor situation in China is comprehensive. He points out the problems, with no “honey coating,” but minus the usual hype one sees in articles coming out of Hong Kong, where vilification by the UK and US is the goal, without examining cause. On Feb 28, 2019, at 15:12, David Green > wrote: The subsequent two episodes of this podcast, total time 1 hour, are also invaluable, and place the "rise" of China in context: http://anticapitalistchronicles.libsyn.com/ On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:52 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://www.democracyatwork.info/acc_chinasinfluence _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 1 15:02:19 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:02:19 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-neoliberalism notes In-Reply-To: <24a3f48b-991f-6dac-d16a-9dbfc3ac6402@forestfield.org> References: <24a3f48b-991f-6dac-d16a-9dbfc3ac6402@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <003001d4d03f$c49f5380$4dddfa80$@comcast.net> " https://theintercept.com/2019/02/27/medicare-for-all-bill-congress-pramila-jayapal/ a recent Intercept article by Ryan Grim, is basically an ad for HR1384 and doesn't give answers as to why HR676 needed to be scrapped, why Sanders' Medicare for All plan exists, and why we needed HR1384. There's also no mention of what the Democrats did with their Congressional power when HR676 was available to be brought to the floor for a vote. " To answer the above questions - 1) The original sponsors of HR 676 over a decade ago were Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and Rep. Dennis Kuccinich of Ohio. Both are no longer House members, so when Conyers left, new co-sponsors were needed. 2) " There's also no mention of what the Democrats did with their Congressional power when HR676 was available to be brought to the floor for a vote. " ..... When the Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency from Jan. 2009 - Jan. 2011 HR 676 had very few co-sponsors and the Obama Admin / DNC lied about what the ACA was going to be and simultaneously crushed any and all opposition / testimony advocating single payer ( HR 676 ). See Baccus Senate Healthcare hearings and arrests of healthcare activists. Also see Matt Taibi's article in Rolling Stone Magazine " Sick and Broken ". Since 2010 the single payer movement has grown exponentially and people that should have known better at the time ( Nat. Nurses Union et al ) have said they will not trust and be fooled again by the Dems. 3) Sanders introduced his bill in the Senate after his stolen 2016 Dem primary election, with momentum from that campaign, because there was no Senate single payer bill. Most people in the single payer movement oppose Sander's bill because it does NOT cover long term healthcare and it allows a role for corporate health insurance companies to be involved in a limited capacity. 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: Friday, March 01, 2019 2:42 AM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-neoliberalism notes Some items to consider for News from Neptune. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Pn9wAsisU -- Trump attacks Bernie Sanders as socialist but then: signs the 2018 Farm bill[1] where food stamps account for much of the cost of the bill (per https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/trump-signs-2018-farm-bill), launches a $1.5T infrastructure bill (per https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-unveila-1point5-trillion-infrestructure-plan/4249532.html). This makes supporters of so-called "global free trade" nervous (per https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tariffs-free-trade/) and calls Trump "our socialist president" (per https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-teach-ocasio-cortez-a-thing-or-two-about-socialism/2018/07/27/f4672a2e-9102-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html) Sen. Ron Johnson, Republican: > This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: > Commissars deciding who's going to be granted waivers, commissars in the > administration figuring out how they're going to sprinkle around > benefits. [1] By the way, part of this bill will legalize hemp as an industrial crop for the US...again. Apparently when the elites want hemp for ropes or other industrial purposes hemp cultivation is legal in the US like it was during WW2 (see the 1942 US government film "Hemp for Victory" -- https://archive.org/details/Hemp_for_victory_1942_FIXED). But this change comes after 80 years of hemp cultivation illegality for no good reason. Some lessons in how to report things from "trusted media" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56-6rp4nzmE -- RT's "journalism crash course" showing a few principles from the media we're told to trust: - "Always fact check" like Forbes didn't in "Are Lemons A Sign Of Upward Mobility Around The World?" https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizzysaxe/2019/02/14/want-to-find-a-rich-person-in-russia-look-for-the-lemons/ by Lizzy Saxe. Any web search tells you the average price of lemons in Russia is $0.30/lemon. But Forbes repeated a claim from Harold Edwards, president and CEO of Limoneira, described as "a gigantic, fascinating company that has been growing lemons and other citrus fruits in California since 1893": Forbes quoted Edwards saying: > ...Wealthy Russians really like to incorporate lemons into their > lifestyle. It communicates to people that they have means to be able to > afford them. They call it the bling of produce. but this quote doesn't appear in this Saxe article now. Instead I see an unbacked claim that: > Harold [Edwards] noticed that "Russians consume a lot more lemons per > capita than many other parts of the world. I was wondering, is that > because they're big tea drinkers? Why are they using so many lemons?" and the rationale (still unbacked with figures or pointers to other data) is that: > As Limoneira started to dig into this, the team found that lemons that > were perceived to be higher quality - California has a certain caché - > were being purchased far more than lemons in general: "We then started > to see similar things in parts of Southeast Asia. I thought it was just > because there were a lot more restaurants that were cropping up, a lot > more retail shopping opportunities, more disposable income. I thought > that was driving all this demand, and certainly, that is part of it. > But it's also become an aspirational item... as more people are starting > to have money in these burgeoning middle-class economies, you're > starting to see a lot more consumption from them because they can." So Forbes appears to have shifted the attempt at making something look good by association from Edwards' company to the state of California. This Saxe article now bears a paragraph which reads: > This article was updated on 2/17/19 to more accurately reflect social > status in Russia. RT pointed this out and said "So you won't have to backtrack". - (quoting RT) "Do your homework" before going live unlike Bari Weiss, staff editor from the New York Times, who didn't do her homework before her recent interview with Joe Rogan (tv game show host, comic, and former star of "Newsradio"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T77uFdw9HJA -- Joe Rogan episode with Bari Weiss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS-sxJFn6O0 -- Jimmy Dore show on this episode pointing out how she can get away with talking points she doesn't understand but never gets questioned on because the US-friendly media agrees with the talking points. Here's the telling excerpt from Joe Rogan's show: > Bari Weiss: So who's in [the Democratic Party running for US president] > right now? We have Kamala, Kristen Gillibrand > > Joe Rogan: Tulsi Gabbard. > > Bari Weiss: Ho ho ho -- monstrous. She's an Assad toady. > > Joe Rogan: What does that mean? What does "toady" mean? > > Bari Weiss: She is a -- I think that I used that word correctly. Jamie > [an off-camera show assistant] can you check what toady means? I think > it means what I think it means. > > Joe Rogan: She's an Assad sycophant, is that what you're saying? > > Bari Weiss: Yeah, that's pro--[the first syllable of "proven"] known about her. > > Joe Rogan: Like, what did she say that qualifies her? > > Bari Weiss: We have to look -- I don't remember the details. > > Joe Rogan: We probably should say that before we say that about her. We > should probably read it, rather. > > Bari Weiss: Well, I have read it. - (As RT puts it) "No quotation marks = Plagiarism" unlike what the New York Times' ex-editor Jill Abramson was accused of. Abramson went on CNN's "Reliable Sources" and talked about this with host Brian Stelter after seeing examples of her work versus the sources she (clearly) copied from without attribution in her book "Merchants of Truth" (oh, the irony): > Brian Stelter: Wouldn't these examples meet the Times' definition of > plagiarism? [...] > > Jill Abramson: It would meet the the Times' definition of things that > should be promptly corrected. [...] And sometimes, you know, a quote > isn't attributed. Labor: More teachers strikes are starting and ending quickly (with virtually zero news coverage) because management is afraid of encouraging others to strike https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/22/oakland-teacher-strike-enters-second-day-negotiations-resume/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/24/oakland-teachers-strike-talks-break-down-sunday-third-day-of-picketing-planned-monday/ -- East Bay Times coverage of the Oakland, CA teachers strike https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooe1TG_a7GA -- Jimmy Dore Show talks about a teachers strike in West Virginia which lasted no more than a week, and an Oakland, CA strike which started January 18 and continues now. https://socialistworker.org/2019/01/18/oakland-teachers-wont-wait-for-a-strike-deadline starts: > EDUCATORS FROM five Oakland high schools and one middle schools are > planning a one-day wildcat strike today to demand that a city swimming > in tech money provide the funding and salaries that its schools and > teachers deserve. > > The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) is offering teachers an > insulting 5 percent raise over five years — in a region where the cost > of living has risen 14 percent in the past five years. > > The Oakland Education Association (OEA) is demanding a 12 percent > increase over three years. Like the United Teachers Los Angeles members > currently on strike down the coast, Oakland educators are also fighting > for smaller class sizes and hiring more nurses, psychologists and > counselors. These teachers strikes seem to want the same things: - roughly 12% pay raises over years, - class size reductions (in Los Angeles county there's no upper-bound on class size), - and more support services for students. and the teachers are winning these strikes, which prompted this segment of conversation on the Jimmy Dore show: > Jimmy Dore: The teachers have been winning every one of these strikes. I > can't believe that every teachers union doesn't go on strike > immediately. Right? > > Ron Placone: If this was amplified more I think they would. A new Medicare for All bill: Rep. Pramila Jayapal's (D-WA) HR1384 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384 -- where one can find the bill once it is published. Right now there's more said about the bill than we can learn from reading the bill. So some of what follows (despite having been announced) is speculative: - HR1384 currently has 106 cosponsors. But remember that HR676 had a lot of cosponsors while the Democrats never brought it to the floor for a vote even when the Democrats had a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and Democratic Party Pres. Obama was in the White House. Even then some Democrats (such as former Senator Al Franken) never cosponsored what was known as HR676 at that time. Apparently they chose to use that power to bring the US "ObamaCare" ("RomneyCare" by another name) -- an HMO-written plan in which Americans would be forced to buy into an HMO-run plan or pay a penalty. Thus the number of cosponsors doesn't really tell us anything. - Then-HR676 was very highly regarded then. Physicians for a National Healthcare Program (PNHP.org) are strongly pro-universal single-payer advocates who rightly argued for HR676. It's unclear why Sen. Bernie Sanders didn't make a Senate bill that was a copy of the text of HR676 with a Senate bill number, or why HR1384 needed to be written at all. People now pushing for HR1384 are notably quiet on why HR1384 had to be written. - As I write this, the text of HR1384 is unavailable (check https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text for the latest). That page returns "As of 02/28/2019 text has not been received for H.R.1384". We're told that this bill's text is over 100 pages, far longer than HR676 was. - https://theintercept.com/2019/02/27/medicare-for-all-bill-congress-pramila-jayapal/ a recent Intercept article by Ryan Grim, is basically an ad for HR1384 and doesn't give answers as to why HR676 needed to be scrapped, why Sanders' Medicare for All plan exists, and why we needed HR1384. There's also no mention of what the Democrats did with their Congressional power when HR676 was available to be brought to the floor for a vote. - HR1384 will take 2 years to fully take effect: within one year of passage, everyone under 19 or over 55 will be automatically enrolled. Everyone else can buy into this plan or stay with their current HMO. Within 2 years, everyone else will be automatically enrolled. But it's not clear why this is structured in this way. Every day some American isn't automatically enrolled is a day the HMOs can push them to not support the plan. Sanders' Medicare for All plan enrolls citizens in stages across 4 years. When Medicare came into being the US was able to enroll millions without the aid of computers. Obama media deals are coming together https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j39zCIT11HQ -- Following a deal they made last year, the Obamas are working with Netflix for an undisclosed sum (RT repeats unattributed estimate of over $100 million). Their "mission: to empower new and diverse voices" which investigative journalist Ben Swann says is more likely to be "new voices saying the same thing" as what was said before. Susan Rice also joined Netflix's board last year. > They simply want to find the next voice to say the same thing that's > been said. The problem again is this: we have a media culture in the > United States that does not really look for diversity of voices; if > you're that expecting to come out of this, you're going to be sorely > disappointed. There's not going to be diversity in terms of messaging or > voices, [...] when they use that term they simply mean more minorities > and more people who are pushing their world view. That sounds like what I'd expect as well: the scam of diversity will translate to more blacks, women, Latinos, etc. saying things that reinforce neoconservative and neoliberal thought -- more people echoing the need to invade Venezuela on the pretense that Maduro is a 'bad man', for instance. What you won't hear are more people pushing to get out of the US's many wars and occupations, a call for a national jobs program funded by cutting the military budget at least in half, and so on. This will end up adding to the evidence that the change in US President is far more minor than it is played up to be: Trump is a weak president who will carry out Obama-style invasion/occupation war policy including keeping with Obama's "not looking back but looking forward" non-aggression pact with previous administrations which insulates members of the G.W. Bush administration from being tried and possibly imprisoned for invading Iraq in 2003, for instance). Yemen: Countries bombing Yemen now pledge to donate aid to Yemen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-vWYj4Jjc -- RT reports: "$2.6B of aid coming into Yemen during a special 1-day conference. More than half of the donations come from the US, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates -- countries which put Yemeni in the dire position they're in now." Pledges (yet to be paid): SA: $500 million UAE: $250 million USA: (over time) $750 million Michael Maloof puts it bluntly: > They're buying people off. There was supposed to be a conference in > Sweden to have a cease-fire. Nothing was agreed to. The war goes on. > Saudis are continuing to bomb civilian areas in spite of showing this > outward sign -- by the way, that money is only a commitment; they > haven't paid anything. Nina Paley open letter to the University of Illinois on her deplatforming at Ebertfest, Arcadia, and consequences at the University of Illinois http://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/02/28/open-letter-to-the-university-of-illinois/ -- Nina Paley's open letter https://www.uillinois.edu/about/guiding_principles -- University of Illinois' "Guiding Principles" Censorship: Project Veritas shows Facebook has "deboosting" tools which they use against pages that don't echo a liberal line https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoOrr_W2fC4 -- Facebook confirms "deboosting" but calls Project Veritas' investigative journalism a stunt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPOc-AWneRc -- James O'Keefe asking Facebook employees questions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYSmFI9GAAs -- Facebook insider speaks out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMtbba2fD4M -- Facebook will "classify posts as 'hate speech', limiting live streams from Facebook, and suppressing the reach of posts" says this report. A whistleblower spoke with Project Veritas about this. You might remember Project Veritas' undercover camera work which exposed Twitter employees bragging about the ways in which they can restrict an account holder from being read -- outright banning them from the site, "shadowbanning" the user's posts so the user doesn't realize their posts aren't triggering update notifications in followers feeds (thus reducing the odds the posts will be read), and downranking the posts in searches. Project Veritas also showed videos of CNN employees explaining how they were in the tank for Hillary Clinton and CNN anchor Van Jones saying Russiagate was a "nothing burger" (the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians and this collusion somehow put Trump in the White House had no substance to back them up) (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qSPA9WRJec). In this instance, Project Veritas interviewed a whistleblower who worked on allegations of copyright and trademark infringement and says she also noticed "other things were going on on accounts". She alleges that pages including "conservative" content are being "deboosted" -- followers were not being notified of updates to pages with conservative views expressed. This is the same as what Twitter called "shadowbanning". In some cases content from a user's Facebook pages were removed without letting users know about the censorship. She said that this was particular to conservatives: > First I was wondering whether this was something that -- I had a couple > working theories -- I was like maybe this is an independent versus > mainstream thing. Maybe independent figures on the left are experiencing > the same kind of deboosting. But I didn't see that. I looked at The > Young Turks' page, I looked at Colin Kaepernick's page, none of them had > received the same deboost. And Facebook is tagging pages with terms it doesn't like as "hate speech" and "offensive". But only for conservative pages; the effect is quite one-sided for now. And this whistleblower is not the first to allege this is going on. Facebook also confirmed she was fired for working with Project Veritas, so we're sure she was a former Facebook employee as she claimed. Recall also that Alphabet and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt famously told an audience that Google had plans to "derank" RT's entries in the search engine. This means that searches which would normally return RT-related pages high in the listing (making them more likely to be seen on the first page of search results) would begin listing those entries lower down the list, possibly only showing up after a user went to another page of entries thus making them less likely to be selected. RT also points out that this censoring behavior is directly opposed to what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg promised Congress he didn't want to do. But the truth remains that publishing through any third-party service grants that party power over one's freedom to speak and be heard. So in the short term we need to encourage people to stop hosting their publications with only one service and instead to host with multiple services simultaneously; this will reduce the censorial power any one service has over one's speech. Also, we need multiple Internet services everywhere including state-owned services all sharing the same community-owned networks. And we need Internet services as a right, not a privilege only available to those who can afford it from the marketplace. The market is not interested in guaranteeing one's freedom of speech and they have no obligation to do so, no matter how many people want to call Facebook, Twitter, et al a public marketplace of ideas. Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSt0jEC9pEM -- British anti-Islamic activist Tommy Robinson has been banned from Facebook and Instagram claiming: > When ideas and opinions cross the line and amount to hate speech that > may create an environment of intimidation and exclusion for certain > groups in society -- in some cases with potentially dangerous offline > implications -- we take action. Tommy Robinson's Facebook page has > repeatedly broken these standards, posting material that uses > dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims. He has > also behaved in ways that violate our policies around organized hate. But don't think this means military contractors Facebook/Instagram pages, propagandistic media outlets (like Washington Post which recently got caught misleading about Richard Branson's Venezuela concert), or any politician who espouses neoconservative or neoliberal views (such as Hillary Clinton) will lose their Facebook/Instagram content. Related: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-facebook-war-on-hate-speech -- Vanity Fair's all too kind article on Facebook's Monika Bickert, a former federal prosecutor and Harvard Law School graduate, who has "real power to dictate free-speech norms for the entire world" but is faced with a dilemma on how to censor posts containing "men are scum" without "allow[ing] more attacks on the basis of gender": > When Facebook mass-deletes “men are scum,” it’s not thanks to top-down > bias at the company, or some rogue men’s-rights Facebooker taking his > stand against misandry. Nor is it a boneheaded “enforcement error” > caused by one of Facebook’s 15,000 human content moderators around the > world. The posts get removed because of one of Monika Bickert’s > well-intentioned, though possibly doomed, policies. Nowhere will you find any definition of the term "hate speech" (though the term is used many times throughout the article) or any thought given to whether Facebook should censor in the first place. We're supposed to pity poor Facebook for taking on this "well-intentioned" policy. Big media outlets merge again: AT&T buys Time-Warner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e17LQMY0dpE -- interview with Media Studies Professor Robin Anderson. Media: How to watch the media -- don't buy into their newsreaders' tears, outrage, and other emotional outbursts. Wait for the facts to come in first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIdHyF-Zssw -- RT's Caleb Maupin reminds us to look past the newsreaders own reactions to stories and wait for the facts to come in before gauging how to respond. Recently actor Justin "Jussie" Smollett faked an attack on himself in order to manufacture sympathy and negotiate increased payment on his TV show "Empire". Smollett tried to tie the alleged attack to racism, homophobia (Smollett is gay), and Pres. Trump. At the time of the initial news, there was considerable outrage from commentators and newsreaders. But the media has a bad track record of evaluating such events instead choosing to grandstand and virtue signal instead of reporting the facts of the case: - Rachel Maddow choked up when reading about child migrants being put into Texas shelters blaming the policy on Pres. Trump. The narrative fit the media's immediate need: look like Pres. Trump is uniquely horrible and needs to be opposed. It turns out that a similar policy existed under Pres. Obama. A famous picture also circulated online around the same time showed a migrant child in a cage, alleging to be a fair representation of how Trump treated child migrants. It turns out that the photo was taken during the Obama administration. - Omran, a young boy from Aleppo, was shown with dust and blood on his face sitting (alive) and the media were eager to use the image for Syrian war propaganda. CNN's host of a segment (labeled "Crisis in Syria") was typical; she said (choked up throughout): > What strikes me is we shed tears, but there are no tears here. He > doesn't cry once. That little boy is in total shock. He's stunned. This > is Omran. He's alive. We wanted you to know. It turns out that Omran, a minor, was photographed before he was given first aid. His father was upset at him being used in this way. CNN didn't interview him after he was cleaned up or ask his father for permission to use the child's image. Lara Logan was CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent from 2006-2018. She was on the Mike Drop podcast and had this to say about media manipulation: > How do you know you're being lied to? How do you know you're being > manipulated? How do you know there's something not right with the > coverage? When they simplify it all and there's no gray. We seem to be > doing, today, is substituting the law and the courts for trial by > media. Economy: What does austerity do? How did the US get Pres. Trump? And what does debt cancellation have to do with this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSvcB55R8jM -- Jimmy Dore interview with Michael Hudson, author of "...and forgive them their debts" on how Wall Street gave us Trump, and how austerity is the opposite of what poor people need. (36m04s) Highly recommended viewing as this is quite informative as to how we arrived at where we are and what's coming up. Russiagate: Still no evidence of conspiracy theory alleging collusion between Trump campaign and Russians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUZAs52tpVA -- RT's report on how much of a non-story the Cohen testimony is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbtDt9abaX0 -- Aaron Maté with Cenk Uygur https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hgWSrvXxzs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1itMF_BYeU -- Jimmy Dore show with Aaron Maté on Russiagate: Michael Cohen says he has no evidence of collusion, rightly points out that it's not his job to debunk Buzzfeed (which Mueller did when he told the country not to expect much from his ongoing investigation). So we've got Mueller debunking Russiagate, Cohen debunking Russiagate, and that would seem to mean it's safe to say there was never anything to Russiagate. And there's absolutely no evidence that WikiLeaks told Roger Stone anything on the phone. WikiLeaks also says they never had a phone conversation with Stone, but this could be easily disproven by phone records if anyone cared to do the proper journalistic legwork of looking it up. Cohen said this advanced knowledge of the DNC emails he describes between Roger Stone, Donald Trump, and him in the room listening to the speakerphone all happened on the 18th or 19th of July 2016. But anything Stone says he had ahead of time from WikiLeaks was provably public knowledge: there's footage of Assange on ITV.com on June 12, 2016 saying: > We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication, > that is correct. there is also a tweet from WikiLeaks posted July 7, 2016 at 7:52PM: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/751202198101626882 > Have more than 1,000,000 followers? Want early access to our pending > Hillary Clinton publications? DM @WikiLeaks or their post from July 22, 2016 at 10:33AM: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756501723305414656 > Did you know our pending DNC release contains 5,245 emails about Trump > 2,893 about Hillary Clinton & 2,235 on Bernie Sanders? #feelthebern and WikiLeaks recently reminding us that (posted February 27, 2016): https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1100820252450082818 > STATEMENT on Michael Cohen testimony to Congress: WikiLeaks publisher > Julian Assange has never had a telephone call with Roger Stone. > WikiLeaks publicly teased its pending publications on Hillary Clinton > and published > 30k of her emails on 16 March 2016. > https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ Thomas Massie (R-KY) asked "Did you know this was public knowledge in June?" but that didn't stop corporate media and corporate-friendly media from pushing Russiagate further. So this is yet another Congressional bit of theatre without substance, just like the rest of Russiagate. But does that mean Russiagate will die? Aaron Maté points out on the Jimmy Dore show: > Aaron Maté: It's a great example of how the conspiracy theory works and > Matt Taibbi was prescient because if you watch CNN today, if you read > the headlines they say, you know, Trump was told in advance of the > WikiLeaks emails. They omit, exactly as you're saying, they omit the > fact that these emails were already publicly announced by WikiLeaks. > They just don't mention it. And that is how this conspiracy theory about > Trump and Russia worked for over two years -- they just leave out > anything that is countervailing. And to get it you have to go to places > like Jimmy Dore, or follow the right people on Twitter. But if you watch > the corporate media -- > > Jimmy Dore: Even the non-corporate media [carries the Russiagate > narrative] > > Aaron Maté: Even the non-corporate media, yeah, it's true. > > Jimmy Dore: Even the non-corporate media pushes this exact narrative. > > Aaron Maté: It's true. Anybody -- there is an incentive to peddling this > conspiracy theory because it's been decided it's the way we're resisting > Trump. And it benefits too many powerful people who -- happen to decide > that it benefits their agenda for different reasons. But the point is, > it's propaganda. And it works like this, it works by omission. By > leaving out the countervailing facts that undermine the entire premise. Who benefits and how? Russiagate is still so valuable to multiple parties: Russian sanctions need justification somehow, Hillary Clinton needs a way to explain her second loss (and to a political novice at that -- I doubt many people knew who Barack Obama was when he was Illinois' junior senator), Buzzfeed (which stands by its story) is going to need an explanation for continuing to publish lies, rumors of war with Russia helps grease payments to war profiteers. One of the broadcasters uncritically pushing Russiagate -- Democracy Now. Here's what DN had to say in In https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/28/headlines/michael_cohen_tells_congress_trump_committed_multiple_criminal_acts DN called Cohen's testimony "Michael Cohen’s historic testimony". But it's really not historic because there's no substance to the testimony. https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/28/a_criminal_in_the_oval_office > AMY GOODMAN: Later in the hearing, Republican Congressmember Thomas > Massie of Kentucky questioned Michael Cohen. > ---start of clip of testimony--- > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: You said—and this is also in your testimony—in the > days before the Democratic convention, you became privy to a > conversation that some of Hillary Clinton emails would be leaked. Is > that correct? > > MICHAEL COHEN: Correct. > > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: OK. Was that in—you said late July. Do you know the > exact day? > > MICHAEL COHEN: I believe it was either the 18th or the 19th, and I would > guess that it would be on the 19th. > > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: But it was definitely July? > > MICHAEL COHEN: I believe so, yes. > > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Do you know that was public knowledge in June? This > was Mr. Assange. And I’d like to submit this—unanimous consent to submit > this for the record. > > REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Without objection, so ordered. > > REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Mr. Assange reported to the media on June 12th that > those emails would be leaked. So, I’m not saying you have fake news; I’m > saying you have old news, and there’s really not much to that. > ---end of clip of testimony--- > AMY GOODMAN: Marcy Wheeler, he’s saying that a lot of people knew, that > Julian Assange had said it publicly. > > MARCY WHEELER: Julian Assange said publicly that he had material on > Hillary Clinton. What Julian Assange never said publicly is “I’m going > to drop it at the beginning of the DNC.” And so, what is interesting > about Cohen’s story—and, to be clear, it’s unlikely that he really did > speak directly with Julian Assange. We know from a bunch of Stone’s > other claims that when he claimed to be speaking directly with Assange, > he instead was speaking with a cutout, like Jerome Corsi or like Randy > Credico. > > But what it appears happened is that Stone informed Trump precisely when > the emails were going to be dropped. And that, as far as I know, is not > something that has been made public before, and is particularly > interesting because if the call happened on July 19th, Stone was meeting > with Nigel Farage at the RNC that day, and he’s one of the people that > it was clear Mueller seemed interested in finding out whether was a > go-between between people in the U.K. who knew about the emails and > Roger Stone. So, it is new information. It’s consistent with Roger > Stone’s indictment, although it means, in the indictment, Mueller is > referring to the president himself as a senior campaign official. It’s > more specific than we had ever known before. But this is more of Marcy Wheeler trying to manufacture a case for Russiagate that isn't there: - It's not particularly relevant if Assange told anyone outside WikiLeaks when the DNC emails would begin to be published or if that date coincided with the Hillary DNC rally. - Wheeler insists something "interesting" occurred "if the call happened on July 19th" but the DNC emails had been talked about publicly prior to that. None of this is contradicted by Amy Goodman. Goodman has been dutifully reporting Russiagate lies without clarification or contradiction, as I have pointed out in previous editions of my notes. Wheeler has been making a lot of claims about Russiagate for quite some time (including in The Real News interviews with Aaron Maté) -- all complicated theories backed with anonymous sources and no references to published facts. This is no different: "Stone informed Trump precisely when the [DNC] emails were going to be dropped" is evidenceless assertion. There is no new information here and nothing "more specific than we had ever known before". Propaganda to lay the groundwork for invasion/occupation: Venezuela edition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk7gkZiXWbA -- Jimmy Dore show discusses Jorge Ramos' propagandistic piece for Univision showing Venezuelans eating out of garbage truck as if this fairly represents what's going to Venezuelans, later tacitly admitting to selling out for regime change war. No mention of US sanctions against Venezuela either. This piece includes Aaron Maté as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny5KFTLyiRw -- How propaganda works with analysis on Venezuelan coup, fake Red Cross in Venezuela lighting USAID truck on fire and blaming their opponents, and more. This includes Aaron Maté as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhaTFe5X9EM -- Jimmy Dore show with Aaron Maté debunking CNN's pro-coup propaganda. The Maduro government has problems and Venezuelans have their differences with that administration, but calling Maduro a dictator is just propaganda. Venezuelan invasion coming soon says Russian Security Council Secretary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw_ghxacAqE -- Russia's security council warns of Venezuelan invasion aimed at toppling Pres. Maduro. US troop movements -- special ops in Puerto Rico, army in Colombia -- are precursors to military invasion: Nikolai Patrushev, secretary, Russian Security Council as quoted by RT: > Other facts clearly indicate that the Pentagon is strengthening its > troops in the region to oust legally elected President Maduro. The > Venezuelan people understand this well. Hence, their reaction, their > refusal to accept the goods from the aggressor country and support their > president. Canadian police are tracking "negative behavior" in a "risk" database https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzdp5v/police-in-canada-are-tracking-peoples-negative-behavior-in-a-risk-database -- > Police, social services, and health workers in Canada are using shared > databases to track the behavior of vulnerable people -- including minors > and people experiencing homelessness -- with little oversight and often > without consent. Documents obtained by Motherboard from Ontario's > Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) through > an access to information request show that at least two provinces -- > Ontario and Saskatchewan -- maintain a "Risk-driven Tracking Database" > that is used to amass highly sensitive information about people's lives. > Information in the database includes whether a person uses drugs, has > been the victim of an assault, or lives in a "negative neighborhood." > > The Risk-driven Tracking Database (RTD) is part of a collaborative > approach to policing called the Hub model that partners cops, school > staff, social workers, health care workers, and the provincial > government. Information about people believed to be "at risk" of > becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian > agencies and police and is added to the database when a person is being > evaluated for a rapid intervention intended to lower their risk levels. > Interventions can range from a door knock and a chat to forced > hospitalization or arrest. Data from the RTD is analyzed to identify > trends -- for example, a spike in drug use in a particular area -- with > the goal of producing planning data to deploy resources effectively, and > create "community profiles" that could accelerate interventions under > the Hub model, according to a 2015 Public Safety Canada report. The database claims to be "de-identified" by removing people's names and birthdates but this is not confirmed and this practice is deceptively effective. It's very difficult to successfully remove enough data from a database and truly hide who is being described in the data (a process called "anonymization" or making data about people anonymous). In 2006 AOL published its users search queries, ostensibly to help other search engine developers understand what people look for and help develop better search software. AOL anonymized the data by removing IP addresses and usernames and then assigning fake IDs to the queries. But reporters Michael Barbro and Tom Zeller successfully identified 62-year-old widow Thelma Arnold (given fake ID 417729) from Lilburn, Georgia. The reporters examined clues in her searches and learned she had been looking up medical information for her friends (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak and https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html for more). User 927 from the same AOL dataset also provoked interest -- this user's bizarre search history (including "human mold", "testicle festivals", "tormented/dying elmo", and "j. edgar hoover") inspired a play (called "User 927" written by Katharine Clark Grey in Philadelphia) and some memes. In 2015 we learned that researchers at MIT and Université catholique de Louvain had analyzed data on 1.5 million cellphone users over 15 months and found that one only needs 4 points of reference to uniquely identify 95% of cellphone users.[1] From https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/how-hard-it-de-anonymize-cellphone-data > In other words, to extract the complete location information for a > single person from an “anonymized” data set of more than a million > people, all you would need to do is place him or her within a couple of > hundred yards of a cellphone transmitter, sometime over the course of an > hour, four times in one year. A few Twitter posts would probably provide > all the information you needed, if they contained specific information > about the person’s whereabouts. Hence you are better off not giving people or organizations data to analyze in the first place, rather than relying on them to anonymize data they choose to publish. [1] Perhaps now you will understand why these devices are more honestly called "trackers" -- that's what they chiefly do, not make/take phone calls. Pushing for poor-quality jobs, gentrification: Influential people push for Amazon to reconsider New York https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/nyregion/amazon-hq2-nyc.html https://www.cnet.com/news/new-york-city-makes-its-pitch-again-for-amazons-hq2 -- Amazon said they wouldn't go to New York for their second headquarter location ("HQ2") but "the CEOs of Mastercard, Warby Parker, Goldman Sachs, Tishman Speyer and Jetblue, among others" are asking for Amazon to reconsider that and come to New York after all and soon will publish an open letter to this effect in the New York Times. -J _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Mar 1 15:41:56 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:41:56 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Open Letter to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Venezuela Message-ID: <005b01d4d045$4d3d2280$e7b76780$@comcast.net> Open Letter to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Venezuela Go to the profile of Stan Goff Stan Goff Feb 20 https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*SGw6rVqUNFexuJG1.jpg Dear Representative Ocasio-Cortez, I am one of your many fans. Your breakthrough in the 14th District of New York was historic; and your popularity is adding fuel to the fires of a crucial social democratic political challenge to neoliberal Democrats. I follow you on Twitter. I repost all your stuff to my Facebook friends. I tout you and others (Rep. Tlaib is from my state) as our last, best hope. I am also a retired member of the armed forces with substantial Latin American experience (as one of many agents of imperialism). That is why I am expressing my disappointment with one of your remarks about Donald Trump’s so-called “state of the union” speech, in which you characterized the Venezuelan government of Nicholas Maduro as anti-democratic and “authoritarian.” I realize you are swimming in the swift currents of national politics, and you can’t be expected to research everything, but you have been let down by your staff and advisers on the subject of Venezuela. I admit that it’s tough to tell the truth about Venezuela when the US ruling class has so effectively muddied the water, but that is what real leaders do. Discover the truth and tell it, even if you will be swimming in yet deeper, swifter waters. You are a leader now, a powerfully influential one, and that’s why I’m asking you to distinguish reality form propaganda. I fall for clickbait sometimes, so I know we all make these kinds of mistakes. Yours have impact. This statement about Venezuela is a mistake. A big one. The propaganda has worked, and that makes it harder. But we rely on leaders like you to be courageous enough to challenge even successful propaganda that is untrue. You owe that to yourself, your constituents, and the people of Venezuela who have long suffered at the hands of the class represented by Juan Guaidó — an upper class defined by whiter skin (Venezuelan society suffers from vile white supremacy), more money, and access to visas — the reason most Venezuelans in the US are anti-Bolivarian. The only thing most of the Venezuelan elite hate more than indigenous Venezuelans are Afro-Venzuelans . . . and Chavez was both. So are the poor majority in Venezuela. Nicholas Maduro is the legitimately elected President of Venezuela. The United States government, in coordination with the racist Venezuelan ruling class, is the “opposition.” Your specific remark was in response to the guilt-by-association fallacy now routinely employed by neoliberal Democrats as well as Republicans to tar “socialism.” You are reported to have said, “What we really need to realize is happening is that this is an issue of authoritarian regime versus democracy and in order for him to try to dissuade or throw people off the scent of the trail, he has to really make and confuse the public.” (italics added) The problem here is that you yourself have now repeated a fallacious trope that has wrongly established President Maduro’s “guilt” in the minds of the public (by a neoliberal press) as an authoritarian. Only with this falsehood can the guilt-by-association fallacy (Maduro=socialism=economic ruin=authoritarianism) work. It becomes a false-guilt by association fallacy. The fact is, both Maduro and his late predecessor, President Hugo Chavez, were repeatedly elected by Venezuelan majorities in internationally-validated elections. One tried and true technique employed by US coup makers is to foment enough street destabilization (manufactured social crisis) to provoke a police response, then spin the response as “authoritarian.” Establishment Democrats have been up to their necks in this skullduggery. I know that the usual term for the Democratic establishment is “centrist,” but this is part of an illusion that the term “neoliberal” exposes; so I will begin with that, because the history of US-Venezuelan relations has been, ever since the neoliberal (read: late capitalist globalization) project began with the Reagan administration, a history of neoliberalism versus economic democracy and Venezuelan sovereignty. Neoliberalism is globalization through debt and colonization of other countries’ home markets. In this hemisphere, we are seeing the neoliberal version of the Monroe Doctrine — the idea that the US essentially manages the affairs of the whole hemisphere through colonial surrogates. The Venezuelan ruling class is a US colonial surrogate. What is happening now in Venezuela is not made-in-Venezuela, it is the latest act in a coup attempt by the US that has been ongoing since Hugo Chavez won the Presidency in 1998 (taking office in 1999). Philip Cerny explained neoliberalism this way: <> Neoliberal theology asserts the primacy of the private, the value of small government; but neoliberal practice has been massively subsidized and legally protected from public accountability by the state. Without the state’s affirmative actions on behalf of the international business class, the system would collapse. Fast. Begin by thinking about how many battle groups from the US Navy are required to ensure the flow of fossil hydrocarbons into the industrialized metropolis, and you can extrapolate from there. One of the key advantages of this “public-private” partnership that is neoliberalism is insulated from accountability to those below those institutions on the social hierarchy. The boundaries are blurred, via contracts and memoranda of understanding, between the US public sector — with its administrative apparatus, and its military and intelligence establishment with their vast budgets — and the private sector, composed of publicly funded “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs), think tanks, foundations, and an army of horizontally-integrated perception managers. Those perception managers (MSNBC is one, every bit as much as Fox) have mass media as a conformity-producing web of influence that reaches right into the living rooms of a US culture that has 2.24 television sets, running an average of six hours and 47 minutes a day, 2,476 hours a year. To appreciate the latent power of television, realize that the average college class has a student in tow for three hours a week. In terms of how the top of the pyramid relates to the base, this public-private alliance has the force of law in addition to a mobile redistribution of accountability. The people on the bottom are excluded from knowing who is the author of anything. We saw this mobile redistribution of accountability in action with the US-supported Honduran coup d’etat against democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya . . . whose sin was to question neoliberal economics for Honduras. The transnational public-private alliance that authored the coup used this accountability shuffle to checkmate Zelaya and feint past the Organization of American States (OAS). This shell-game of accountability provides a coup alliance with enormous tactical agility. Bear this mobile accountability in mind as you read about coups themselves, in their (a) preparatory phase, their (b) execution phase, and their (c) consolidation phase. The essential objectives of neoliberal policy are: (1) to reduce obstacles to the penetration of other nations’ trade and capital markets and lock them when possible into debt-dependency, (2) to establish and enforce neoliberal orthodoxy as the organizing principle of the state, (3) to minimize “outcome-oriented” state intervention, e.g., poverty reduction, and stress state regulation that encourages economic “growth,” and (4) to shift emphasis from government (identifiable and therefore subject to account) to governance (control is exercised by a meshwork of public and private agencies, under a regulatory regime, which become less identifiable, i.e., less targetable from below for accountability). These are the goals, likewise, of neoliberal coups like the one being tried now in Venezuela. Who benefits from this often impenetrable regulatory regime? From 1983 until 2007, according to a study by sociologist G. William Dumhoff, net worth distribution between the wealthiest quintile (20%) of the population and the other four quintiles combined (80%), changed from 81.3% of the wealth held by the top quintile to 85.1 percent of the wealth. In the same period, the bottom 80% went from holding 18.7% of the wealth to 15%. Today, in the US, the top one percent holds 40 percent of American wealth, and almost all the political power. See, you know this stuff, but you may not have studied its history in Venezuela. Henceforth, please study the history of neoliberalism in any other country before you say things you hear from MSNBC — a neoliberal news outlet that is a fully owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party neoliberal establishment. Neoliberalism has effected a net transfer of wealth upward, beginning in the late 70s and early 80s. The transfer of wealth from poor countries to rich ones has been even more accelerated. Neoliberalism is the current system to achieve continuity of elite, and imperial, power. But imperial power has always had a core-periphery dynamic, that is, a powerful core — a nation or alliance of nations — that rely on the exploitation of peripheries to maintain their dominance. I couldn’t type on this computer if it were not for cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo, iron from Brazil (another coup state now), palladium from Botswana, gold from Costa Rica, copper from Chile, selenium from the Philippines, zinc from Peru, silver and antimony from Mexico, chromium, manganese, and platinum from South Africa, and aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, and mercury from China — all gained through unequal exchange. Core nation elites value stability, and sharing some of the surplus from exploitations abroad with one’s domestic political base is one way a domestic population is invested in an unequal core-periphery dynamic. A measure of shared imperial privilege across class lines consolidates the core’s political base. It was that way in imperial Rome. It is that way today. An average American — even though well down on the champagne glass as it represents the US population — still consumes vastly more than the average Congolese or Filipino or Peruvian or Chinese. We are awarded a share of imperial privilege as a hedge against social unrest. And we are fed propaganda to “other” those abroad who resist the neoliberal order. The anti-austerity programs promoted by you and other social democrats (I’m all in for Sanders again) are essentially anti-neoliberal. Neoliberalism emerged in response to a deep secular crisis of capitalism, first with the stagflation of the 70s, followed by the Latin American debt crisis of the 80s, followed by the serial catastrophes of the 90s — with Latin America, East Asia, Turkey, Russia — and culminating in the 2000s, with the dotcom bust and the magical exploding real estate bubble that hasn’t finished with us yet (it’s consequences are being delayed and increased in eventual severity by something called “quantitative easing”). Neoliberalism is embedded in crisis. Neoliberalism, for all its triumphal rhetoric about “the end of history” and “there is no alternative,” has actually been a protracted period of capitalist crisis management. Capital accumulation for the ruling class is threatened when expansion is contained, and so they keep grabbing for more, more more. To justify it, they use ideology. Neoliberal ideology is the sum of the public arguments in defense of the practice of neolibealism, and the repetition of those arguments until they appear axiomatic. Ideology is defined as “an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation,” but the main thing to remember is that successful ideology appears as mere common sense. The claims of ideology are not fashioned to represent actual practices. The purpose of ideology — if public understanding of the practice is likely to engender resistance to power — is to simultaneously conceal that power and ensure that same concealed power’s day-to-day reproduction. The narrative that Maduro and the Bolivarian movement are authoritarian is an ideological, not a factual, claim. The H-Word Dominant ideologies are “hegemonic,” meaning that most people have so internalized the basic assumptions of the ideology that they are seen as “common sense,” placing those assumptions beyond any critical intervention. Hegemonic ideas and practices are embedded in culture. Successful ideology is hegemonic ideology. The actual rules no longer require external persuasion or force; they have been extensively internalized by most people as “the way things are.” The Maduro-authoritarian narrative is hegemonic. Neoliberal arguments, because they are hegemonic, sound very familiar. They are about the hidden hand of the market, and how it shakes society out as a just and flourishing meritocracy. “Free market” is a kind of benevolent god that we ought to thank for its abundance. And neoliberalism discursively constructs itself as inevitable: Maggie Thatcher’s claim, “There is no alternative.” The TINA-fallacy. Neoliberal language is obfuscatory. The Honduran coup was a “constitutional crisis,” and the current coup attempt against Venezuela is “authoritarianism versus democracy.” No caigas en ese truco, querida Diputada. Ideological givens are then available to support propaganda — and propaganda is a weapon during military-political operations, like coups d’etat. Propaganda is one weapon in a coordinated attack, and not representative of any species of truth. Truth is incidental to public pronouncements by governments and institutions. The purpose of official public pronouncements is not representative, but persuasive. Official sources aren’t aiming at the truth, unless it is incidental. They are aiming at your support or acquiescence about what they are doing. We want you to break that pattern, not replay it. The motive behind neoliberalism is perpetuation of ruling class power and American international power, and the mechanics are fourfold: capture competitor nations in an American-dominated system, exploit the markets of weaker nations, ensure net flows of wealth from peripheral nations to sustain US consumption, and lock peripheral nations into debt and dependency as leverage to control how they do business. It was this system that Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian movement challenged, and opposition to neoliberalism is precisely what put this movement in the gunsights of the US ruling class and its colonial surrogates in Venezuela. Because it is not the popular leaders (like Zelaya, Chavez, Aristide) that are the primary threat. They focus the threat, and thereby increase it, but the real threat is popular rule. The coup in progress in Venezuela is not against Maduro, per se, but against the majority of poor, non-white Venezuelans. If this propaganda works, the people will resist, and all in the resistance are already pre-demonized by precisely the kind of propaganda you have been clickbaited into repeating. And mark my words, if that resistance is met with a US invasion, it could turn into a bloodbath. The overwhelming majority of Venezuelans will oppose it, and many will actively fight. I have been to Venezuela, seen the racial/class hierarchy up close, drank Polarcitas with them into the wee hours over pollo asado, and walked the mountains with them. They will not back down. They will never accept a foreign army. And a good deal of the armed forces are loyal to the Venezuelan Constitution —  the military stopped the last overt US coup attempt in 2002. Do any of us want to be complicit in this? Do not repeat the assertions that are paving the way. The coup in progress is not just Trump; it is Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. It is part and parcel of the neoliberal program, the very same one you are opposing here in the US. That program has been continuous. It is a program of systematic, progressive destabilization. Economic destabilization, social destabilization, and security destabilization. All three of these programs have been carried out through economic warfare, propaganda, and US-funded intermediaries. Please take note, Representative Ocasio-Cortez, that this is not a question of authoritarianism versus democracy, but a question of whether the US ought to determine the future of the people of Venezuela. Please do more to learn about them before you mischaracterize the situation there again. We all make mistakes. The best of us admit them, learn from them, and move on to make new mistakes. The struggle you and I are in together in the US is the same one as those Venezuelans who have invested their hope in the Bolivarian project, warts and all. We are the global anti-austerity movement, the fight against neoliberalism. With great respect and my continued support, Stan Goff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2108 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 71488 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Mar 1 21:57:18 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 21:57:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Open Letter to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Venezuela In-Reply-To: <005b01d4d045$4d3d2280$e7b76780$@comcast.net> References: <005b01d4d045$4d3d2280$e7b76780$@comcast.net> Message-ID: This is welcome, but could be more succinct. Yes, she’s young, and perhaps naive about the propaganda emanating from our “news” services, so let’s hope she will have second thoughts about Venezuela. —mkb On Mar 1, 2019, at 9:41 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss > wrote: Open Letter to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Venezuela Stan Goff Feb 20 Dear Representative Ocasio-Cortez, I am one of your many fans. Your breakthrough in the 14th District of New York was historic; and your popularity is adding fuel to the fires of a crucial social democratic political challenge to neoliberal Democrats. I follow you on Twitter. I repost all your stuff to my Facebook friends. I tout you and others (Rep. Tlaib is from my state) as our last, best hope. I am also a retired member of the armed forces with substantial Latin American experience (as one of many agents of imperialism). That is why I am expressing my disappointment with one of your remarks about Donald Trump’s so-called “state of the union” speech, in which you characterized the Venezuelan government of Nicholas Maduro as anti-democratic and “authoritarian.” I realize you are swimming in the swift currents of national politics, and you can’t be expected to research everything, but you have been let down by your staff and advisers on the subject of Venezuela. I admit that it’s tough to tell the truth about Venezuela when the US ruling class has so effectively muddied the water, but that is what real leaders do. Discover the truth and tell it, even if you will be swimming in yet deeper, swifter waters. You are a leader now, a powerfully influential one, and that’s why I’m asking you to distinguish reality form propaganda. I fall for clickbait sometimes, so I know we all make these kinds of mistakes. Yours have impact. This statement about Venezuela is a mistake. A big one. The propaganda has worked, and that makes it harder. But we rely on leaders like you to be courageous enough to challenge even successful propaganda that is untrue. You owe that to yourself, your constituents, and the people of Venezuela who have long suffered at the hands of the class represented by Juan Guaidó — an upper class defined by whiter skin (Venezuelan society suffers from vile white supremacy), more money, and access to visas — the reason most Venezuelans in the US are anti-Bolivarian. The only thing most of the Venezuelan elite hate more than indigenous Venezuelans are Afro-Venzuelans . . . and Chavez was both. So are the poor majority in Venezuela. Nicholas Maduro is the legitimately elected President of Venezuela. The United States government, in coordination with the racist Venezuelan ruling class, is the “opposition.” Your specific remark was in response to the guilt-by-association fallacy now routinely employed by neoliberal Democrats as well as Republicans to tar “socialism.” You are reported to have said, “What we really need to realize is happening is that this is an issue of authoritarian regime versus democracy and in order for him to try to dissuade or throw people off the scent of the trail, he has to really make and confuse the public.” (italics added) The problem here is that you yourself have now repeated a fallacious trope that has wrongly established President Maduro’s “guilt” in the minds of the public (by a neoliberal press) as an authoritarian. Only with this falsehood can the guilt-by-association fallacy (Maduro=socialism=economic ruin=authoritarianism) work. It becomes a false-guilt by association fallacy. The fact is, both Maduro and his late predecessor, President Hugo Chavez, were repeatedly elected by Venezuelan majorities in internationally-validated elections. One tried and true technique employed by US coup makers is to foment enough street destabilization (manufactured social crisis) to provoke a police response, then spin the response as “authoritarian.” Establishment Democrats have been up to their necks in this skullduggery. I know that the usual term for the Democratic establishment is “centrist,” but this is part of an illusion that the term “neoliberal” exposes; so I will begin with that, because the history of US-Venezuelan relations has been, ever since the neoliberal (read: late capitalist globalization) project began with the Reagan administration, a history of neoliberalism versus economic democracy and Venezuelan sovereignty. Neoliberalism is globalization through debt and colonization of other countries’ home markets. In this hemisphere, we are seeing the neoliberal version of the Monroe Doctrine — the idea that the US essentially manages the affairs of the whole hemisphere through colonial surrogates. The Venezuelan ruling class is a US colonial surrogate. What is happening now in Venezuela is not made-in-Venezuela, it is the latest act in a coup attempt by the US that has been ongoing since Hugo Chavez won the Presidency in 1998 (taking office in 1999). Philip Cerny explained neoliberalism this way: <> Neoliberal theology asserts the primacy of the private, the value of small government; but neoliberal practice has been massively subsidized and legally protected from public accountability by the state. Without the state’s affirmative actions on behalf of the international business class, the system would collapse. Fast. Begin by thinking about how many battle groups from the US Navy are required to ensure the flow of fossil hydrocarbons into the industrialized metropolis, and you can extrapolate from there. One of the key advantages of this “public-private” partnership that is neoliberalism is insulated from accountability to those below those institutions on the social hierarchy. The boundaries are blurred, via contracts and memoranda of understanding, between the US public sector — with its administrative apparatus, and its military and intelligence establishment with their vast budgets — and the private sector, composed of publicly funded “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs), think tanks, foundations, and an army of horizontally-integrated perception managers. Those perception managers (MSNBC is one, every bit as much as Fox) have mass media as a conformity-producing web of influence that reaches right into the living rooms of a US culture that has 2.24 television sets, running an average of six hours and 47 minutes a day, 2,476 hours a year. To appreciate the latent power of television, realize that the average college class has a student in tow for three hours a week. In terms of how the top of the pyramid relates to the base, this public-private alliance has the force of law in addition to a mobile redistribution of accountability. The people on the bottom are excluded from knowing who is the author of anything. We saw this mobile redistribution of accountability in action with the US-supported Honduran coup d’etat against democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya . . . whose sin was to question neoliberal economics for Honduras. The transnational public-private alliance that authored the coup used this accountability shuffle to checkmate Zelaya and feint past the Organization of American States (OAS). This shell-game of accountability provides a coup alliance with enormous tactical agility. Bear this mobile accountability in mind as you read about coups themselves, in their (a) preparatory phase, their (b) execution phase, and their (c) consolidation phase. The essential objectives of neoliberal policy are: (1) to reduce obstacles to the penetration of other nations’ trade and capital markets and lock them when possible into debt-dependency, (2) to establish and enforce neoliberal orthodoxy as the organizing principle of the state, (3) to minimize “outcome-oriented” state intervention, e.g., poverty reduction, and stress state regulation that encourages economic “growth,” and (4) to shift emphasis from government (identifiable and therefore subject to account) to governance (control is exercised by a meshwork of public and private agencies, under a regulatory regime, which become less identifiable, i.e., less targetable from below for accountability). These are the goals, likewise, of neoliberal coups like the one being tried now in Venezuela. Who benefits from this often impenetrable regulatory regime? From 1983 until 2007, according to a study by sociologist G. William Dumhoff, net worth distribution between the wealthiest quintile (20%) of the population and the other four quintiles combined (80%), changed from 81.3% of the wealth held by the top quintile to 85.1 percent of the wealth. In the same period, the bottom 80% went from holding 18.7% of the wealth to 15%. Today, in the US, the top one percent holds 40 percent of American wealth, and almost all the political power. See, you know this stuff, but you may not have studied its history in Venezuela. Henceforth, please study the history of neoliberalism in any other country before you say things you hear from MSNBC — a neoliberal news outlet that is a fully owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party neoliberal establishment. Neoliberalism has effected a net transfer of wealth upward, beginning in the late 70s and early 80s. The transfer of wealth from poor countries to rich ones has been even more accelerated. Neoliberalism is the current system to achieve continuity of elite, and imperial, power. But imperial power has always had a core-periphery dynamic, that is, a powerful core — a nation or alliance of nations — that rely on the exploitation of peripheries to maintain their dominance. I couldn’t type on this computer if it were not for cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo, iron from Brazil (another coup state now), palladium from Botswana, gold from Costa Rica, copper from Chile, selenium from the Philippines, zinc from Peru, silver and antimony from Mexico, chromium, manganese, and platinum from South Africa, and aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, and mercury from China — all gained through unequal exchange. Core nation elites value stability, and sharing some of the surplus from exploitations abroad with one’s domestic political base is one way a domestic population is invested in an unequal core-periphery dynamic. A measure of shared imperial privilege across class lines consolidates the core’s political base. It was that way in imperial Rome. It is that way today. An average American — even though well down on the champagne glass as it represents the US population — still consumes vastly more than the average Congolese or Filipino or Peruvian or Chinese. We are awarded a share of imperial privilege as a hedge against social unrest. And we are fed propaganda to “other” those abroad who resist the neoliberal order. The anti-austerity programs promoted by you and other social democrats (I’m all in for Sanders again) are essentially anti-neoliberal. Neoliberalism emerged in response to a deep secular crisis of capitalism, first with the stagflation of the 70s, followed by the Latin American debt crisis of the 80s, followed by the serial catastrophes of the 90s — with Latin America, East Asia, Turkey, Russia — and culminating in the 2000s, with the dotcom bust and the magical exploding real estate bubble that hasn’t finished with us yet (it’s consequences are being delayed and increased in eventual severity by something called “quantitative easing”). Neoliberalism is embedded in crisis. Neoliberalism, for all its triumphal rhetoric about “the end of history” and “there is no alternative,” has actually been a protracted period of capitalist crisis management. Capital accumulation for the ruling class is threatened when expansion is contained, and so they keep grabbing for more, more more. To justify it, they use ideology. Neoliberal ideology is the sum of the public arguments in defense of the practice of neolibealism, and the repetition of those arguments until they appear axiomatic. Ideology is defined as “an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation,” but the main thing to remember is that successful ideology appears as mere common sense. The claims of ideology are not fashioned to represent actual practices. The purpose of ideology — if public understanding of the practice is likely to engender resistance to power — is to simultaneously conceal that power and ensure that same concealed power’s day-to-day reproduction. The narrative that Maduro and the Bolivarian movement are authoritarian is an ideological, not a factual, claim. The H-Word Dominant ideologies are “hegemonic,” meaning that most people have so internalized the basic assumptions of the ideology that they are seen as “common sense,” placing those assumptions beyond any critical intervention. Hegemonic ideas and practices are embedded in culture. Successful ideology is hegemonic ideology. The actual rules no longer require external persuasion or force; they have been extensively internalized by most people as “the way things are.” The Maduro-authoritarian narrative is hegemonic. Neoliberal arguments, because they are hegemonic, sound very familiar. They are about the hidden hand of the market, and how it shakes society out as a just and flourishing meritocracy. “Free market” is a kind of benevolent god that we ought to thank for its abundance. And neoliberalism discursively constructs itself as inevitable: Maggie Thatcher’s claim, “There is no alternative.” The TINA-fallacy. Neoliberal language is obfuscatory. The Honduran coup was a “constitutional crisis,” and the current coup attempt against Venezuela is “authoritarianism versus democracy.” No caigas en ese truco, querida Diputada. Ideological givens are then available to support propaganda — and propaganda is a weapon during military-political operations, like coups d’etat. Propaganda is one weapon in a coordinated attack, and not representative of any species of truth. Truth is incidental to public pronouncements by governments and institutions. The purpose of official public pronouncements is not representative, but persuasive. Official sources aren’t aiming at the truth, unless it is incidental. They are aiming at your support or acquiescence about what they are doing. We want you to break that pattern, not replay it. The motive behind neoliberalism is perpetuation of ruling class power and American international power, and the mechanics are fourfold: capture competitor nations in an American-dominated system, exploit the markets of weaker nations, ensure net flows of wealth from peripheral nations to sustain US consumption, and lock peripheral nations into debt and dependency as leverage to control how they do business. It was this system that Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian movement challenged, and opposition to neoliberalism is precisely what put this movement in the gunsights of the US ruling class and its colonial surrogates in Venezuela. Because it is not the popular leaders (like Zelaya, Chavez, Aristide) that are the primary threat. They focus the threat, and thereby increase it, but the real threat is popular rule. The coup in progress in Venezuela is not against Maduro, per se, but against the majority of poor, non-white Venezuelans. If this propaganda works, the people will resist, and all in the resistance are already pre-demonized by precisely the kind of propaganda you have been clickbaited into repeating. And mark my words, if that resistance is met with a US invasion, it could turn into a bloodbath. The overwhelming majority of Venezuelans will oppose it, and many will actively fight. I have been to Venezuela, seen the racial/class hierarchy up close, drank Polarcitas with them into the wee hours over pollo asado, and walked the mountains with them. They will not back down. They will never accept a foreign army. And a good deal of the armed forces are loyal to the Venezuelan Constitution — the military stopped the last overt US coup attempt in 2002. Do any of us want to be complicit in this? Do not repeat the assertions that are paving the way. The coup in progress is not just Trump; it is Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. It is part and parcel of the neoliberal program, the very same one you are opposing here in the US. That program has been continuous. It is a program of systematic, progressive destabilization. Economic destabilization, social destabilization, and security destabilization. All three of these programs have been carried out through economic warfare, propaganda, and US-funded intermediaries. Please take note, Representative Ocasio-Cortez, that this is not a question of authoritarianism versus democracy, but a question of whether the US ought to determine the future of the people of Venezuela. Please do more to learn about them before you mischaracterize the situation there again. We all make mistakes. The best of us admit them, learn from them, and move on to make new mistakes. The struggle you and I are in together in the US is the same one as those Venezuelans who have invested their hope in the Bolivarian project, warts and all. We are the global anti-austerity movement, the fight against neoliberalism. With great respect and my continued support, Stan Goff _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 2 00:43:33 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 18:43:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for March 1 Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qezuDBnm0pY&fbclid=IwAR0B2rR0dF8ogbZ3I-KhJEebpMWcd_0LtJO-Dq2LMEZXrvXJ9n0R03GycQU Welcome to News from Neptune for March 1, in the ninth week of 2019. I’m Carl Estabrook. Our program is conceived in the spirit of Rosa Luxemburg - murdered by a social democratic government a century ago - who said, “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” That begins by calling things by the right name, particularly in regard to socialism and capitalism. Our mentor Noam Chomsky says, “Terms like capitalism & socialism have been so evacuated of meaning that I don't like to use them. There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence. To the extent there ever was, it disappeared by the 1920’s. Every industrial society is one form or another of state capitalism.” That doesn’t deny that state capitalist regimes that called themselves socialist made immense strides in the 20th century - in Russia & China, notably. Since the last decade of that century, our program has been a weekly hour of spontaneous & unrehearsed discussion of the news of the week and its coverage by the media, done in the spirit of Noam Chomsky - first, on a so-called community radio station - and now via Urbana Public TV and YouTube. (Earlier editions of this program are available at . ) Chomsky says that in the U.S. media, “Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it’s from Neptune.” David Green & I will try to say some true things on today’s “WAR PARTY WINS” edition of News from Neptune. ============== “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” [Chomsky] From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Mar 2 01:05:36 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 19:05:36 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #412 notes Message-ID: <10b794a9-2122-9a80-19a8-7bcdda9a9d37@forestfield.org> News from Neptune #412 A "War Party Wins" edition. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qezuDBnm0pY A list of links to items featured on the show. Thomas Edsall on "The Deepening ‘Racialization’ of American Politics" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/opinion/trump-obama-race.html Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) "Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics" book by Mary D. Edsall; Thomas Byrne Edsall ISBN-10: 9780393309034 ISBN-13: 978-0393309034 Noam Chomsky excerpts from "The Common Good" https://chomsky.info/commongood01/ The quote comes from page 43. Bill Black on "Middle Class Loses, Plutocrats Win With Trump’s Tax Cuts" Transcript: https://therealnews.com/stories/middle-class-loses-plutocrats-win-with-trumps-tax-cuts Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZyzyFCPeA0 David Harvey's podcast on Marx's 'Capital' called "Anti-Capitalist Chronicles" https://anticapitalistchronicles.libsyn.com/ RSS feed: https://anticapitalistchronicles.libsyn.com/rss "Tucker Carlson: Democrats are now the reflexive party of war" (1 year ago) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWslYvI7k8E Tucker Carlson from 2019-02-28 interviewing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard saying how regime change wars are disastrous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpe79LfhUZU Paul Street on "Cohen’s Overlooked Warning – and Other Media Silences Worth Hearing" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/01/cohens-overlooked-warning-and-other-media-silences-worth-hearing/ Sarah Bakewell's "How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer" ISBN-10: 1590514831 ISBN-13: 978-1590514832 Essays of Michel de Montaigne (complete, translated into English) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3600 Sarah Bakewell's "At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails with Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Others" ISBN-10: 1590514882 ISBN-13: 978-1590514887 -J From moboct1 at aim.com Sat Mar 2 16:08:27 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2019 16:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Open Letter to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Venezuela References: <423613183.8054418.1551542907345.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <423613183.8054418.1551542907345@mail.yahoo.com> So how's that "hopey-changey" stuff working out for O-Cortez, to borrow a well-known phrase? Midge -----Original Message----- From: Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss To: David Johnson Cc: Brussel, Morton K ; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2019 3:58 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Open Letter to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Venezuela This is welcome, but could be more succinct. Yes, she’s young, and perhaps naive about the propaganda emanating from our “news” services, so let’s hope she will have second thoughts about Venezuela.  —mkb On Mar 1, 2019, at 9:41 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: Open Letter to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Venezuela Stan Goff Feb 20 Dear Representative Ocasio-Cortez, I am one of your many fans. Your breakthrough in the 14th District of New York was historic; and your popularity is adding fuel to the fires of a crucial social democratic political challenge to neoliberal Democrats. I follow you on Twitter. I repost all your stuff to my Facebook friends. I tout you and others (Rep. Tlaib is from my state) as our last, best hope. I am also a retired member of the armed forces with substantial Latin American experience (as one of many agents of imperialism). That is why I am expressing my disappointment with one of your remarks about Donald Trump’s so-called “state of the union” speech, in which you characterized the Venezuelan government of Nicholas Maduro as anti-democratic and “authoritarian.” I realize you are swimming in the swift currents of national politics, and you can’t be expected to research everything, but you have been let down by your staff and advisers on the subject of Venezuela. I admit that it’s tough to tell the truth about Venezuela when the US ruling class has so effectively muddied the water, but that is what real leaders do. Discover the truth and tell it, even if you will be swimming in yet deeper, swifter waters. You are a leader now, a powerfully influential one, and that’s why I’m asking you to distinguish reality form propaganda. I fall for clickbait sometimes, so I know we all make these kinds of mistakes. Yours have impact. This statement about Venezuela is a mistake. A big one. The propaganda has worked, and that makes it harder. But we rely on leaders like you to be courageous enough to challenge even successful propaganda that is untrue. You owe that to yourself, your constituents, and the people of Venezuela who have long suffered at the hands of the class represented by Juan Guaidó — an upper class defined by whiter skin (Venezuelan society suffers from vile white supremacy), more money, and access to visas — the reason most Venezuelans in the US are anti-Bolivarian. The only thing most of the Venezuelan elite hate more than indigenous Venezuelans are Afro-Venzuelans . . . and Chavez was both. So are the poor majority in Venezuela. Nicholas Maduro is the legitimately elected President of Venezuela. The United States government, in coordination with the racist Venezuelan ruling class, is the “opposition.” Your specific remark was in response to the guilt-by-association fallacy now routinely employed by neoliberal Democrats as well as Republicans to tar “socialism.” You are reported to have said, “What we really need to realize is happening is that this is an issue of authoritarian regime versus democracy and in order for him to try to dissuade or throw people off the scent of the trail, he has to really make and confuse the public.” (italics added) The problem here is that you yourself have now repeated a fallacious trope that has wrongly established President Maduro’s “guilt” in the minds of the public (by a neoliberal press) as an authoritarian. Only with this falsehood can the guilt-by-association fallacy (Maduro=socialism=economic ruin=authoritarianism) work. It becomes a false-guilt by association fallacy. The fact is, both Maduro and his late predecessor, President Hugo Chavez, were repeatedly elected by Venezuelan majorities in internationally-validated elections. One tried and true technique employed by US coup makers is to foment enough street destabilization (manufactured social crisis) to provoke a police response, then spin the response as “authoritarian.” Establishment Democrats have been up to their necks in this skullduggery. I know that the usual term for the Democratic establishment is “centrist,” but this is part of an illusion that the term “neoliberal” exposes; so I will begin with that, because the history of US-Venezuelan relations has been, ever since the neoliberal (read: late capitalist globalization) project began with the Reagan administration, a history of neoliberalism versus economic democracy and Venezuelan sovereignty. Neoliberalism is globalization through debt and colonization of other countries’ home markets. In this hemisphere, we are seeing the neoliberal version of the Monroe Doctrine — the idea that the US essentially manages the affairs of the whole hemisphere through colonial surrogates. The Venezuelan ruling class is a US colonial surrogate. What is happening now in Venezuela is not made-in-Venezuela, it is the latest act in a coup attempt by the US that has been ongoing since Hugo Chavez won the Presidency in 1998 (taking office in 1999). Philip Cerny explained neoliberalism this way: <> Neoliberal theology asserts the primacy of the private, the value of small government; but neoliberal practice has been massively subsidized and legally protected from public accountability by the state. Without the state’s affirmative actions on behalf of the international business class, the system would collapse. Fast. Begin by thinking about how many battle groups from the US Navy are required to ensure the flow of fossil hydrocarbons into the industrialized metropolis, and you can extrapolate from there.    One of the key advantages of this “public-private” partnership that is neoliberalism is insulated from accountability to those below those institutions on the social hierarchy. The boundaries are blurred, via contracts and memoranda of understanding, between the US public sector — with its administrative apparatus, and its military and intelligence establishment with their vast budgets — and the private sector, composed of publicly funded “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs), think tanks, foundations, and an army of horizontally-integrated perception managers. Those perception managers (MSNBC is one, every bit as much as Fox) have mass media as a conformity-producing web of influence that reaches right into the living rooms of a US culture that has 2.24 television sets, running an average of six hours and 47 minutes a day, 2,476 hours a year. To appreciate the latent power of television, realize that the average college class has a student in tow for three hours a week. In terms of how the top of the pyramid relates to the base, this public-private alliance has the force of law in addition to a mobile redistribution of accountability. The people on the bottom are excluded from knowing who is the author of anything. We saw this mobile redistribution of accountability in action with the US-supported Honduran coup d’etat against democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya . . . whose sin was to question neoliberal economics for Honduras. The transnational public-private alliance that authored the coup used this accountability shuffle to checkmate Zelaya and feint past the Organization of American States (OAS). This shell-game of accountability provides a coup alliance with enormous tactical agility. Bear this mobile accountability in mind as you read about coups themselves, in their (a) preparatory phase, their (b) execution phase, and their (c) consolidation phase.    The essential objectives of neoliberal policy are:    (1) to reduce obstacles to the penetration of other nations’ trade and capital markets and lock them when possible into debt-dependency,    (2) to establish and enforce neoliberal orthodoxy as the organizing principle of the state,    (3) to minimize “outcome-oriented” state intervention, e.g., poverty reduction, and stress state regulation that encourages economic “growth,” and    (4) to shift emphasis from government (identifiable and therefore subject to account) to governance (control is exercised by a meshwork of public and private agencies, under a regulatory regime, which become less identifiable, i.e., less targetable from below for accountability). These are the goals, likewise, of neoliberal coups like the one being tried now in Venezuela.    Who benefits from this often impenetrable regulatory regime? From 1983 until 2007, according to a study by sociologist G. William Dumhoff, net worth distribution between the wealthiest quintile (20%) of the population and the other four quintiles combined (80%), changed from 81.3% of the wealth held by the top quintile to 85.1 percent of the wealth. In the same period, the bottom 80% went from holding 18.7% of the wealth to 15%. Today, in the US, the top one percent holds 40 percent of American wealth, and almost all the political power. See, you know this stuff, but you may not have studied its history in Venezuela. Henceforth, please study the history of neoliberalism in any other country before you say things you hear from MSNBC — a neoliberal news outlet that is a fully owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party neoliberal establishment. Neoliberalism has effected a net transfer of wealth upward, beginning in the late 70s and early 80s. The transfer of wealth from poor countries to rich ones has been even more accelerated. Neoliberalism is the current system to achieve continuity of elite, and imperial, power. But imperial power has always had a core-periphery dynamic, that is, a powerful core — a nation or alliance of nations — that rely on the exploitation of peripheries to maintain their dominance. I couldn’t type on this computer if it were not for cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo, iron from Brazil (another coup state now), palladium from Botswana, gold from Costa Rica, copper from Chile, selenium from the Philippines, zinc from Peru, silver and antimony from Mexico, chromium, manganese, and platinum from South Africa, and aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, and mercury from China — all gained through unequal exchange.    Core nation elites value stability, and sharing some of the surplus from exploitations abroad with one’s domestic political base is one way a domestic population is invested in an unequal core-periphery dynamic. A measure of shared imperial privilege across class lines consolidates the core’s political base. It was that way in imperial Rome. It is that way today. An average American — even though well down on the champagne glass as it represents the US population — still consumes vastly more than the average Congolese or Filipino or Peruvian or Chinese. We are awarded a share of imperial privilege as a hedge against social unrest. And we are fed propaganda to “other” those abroad who resist the neoliberal order. The anti-austerity programs promoted by you and other social democrats (I’m all in for Sanders again) are essentially anti-neoliberal.   Neoliberalism emerged in response to a deep secular crisis of capitalism, first with the stagflation of the 70s, followed by the Latin American debt crisis of the 80s, followed by the serial catastrophes of the 90s — with Latin America, East Asia, Turkey, Russia — and culminating in the 2000s, with the dotcom bust and the magical exploding real estate bubble that hasn’t finished with us yet (it’s consequences are being delayed and increased in eventual severity by something called “quantitative easing”). Neoliberalism is embedded in crisis. Neoliberalism, for all its triumphal rhetoric about “the end of history” and “there is no alternative,” has actually been a protracted period of capitalist crisis management. Capital accumulation for the ruling class is threatened when expansion is contained, and so they keep grabbing for more, more more. To justify it, they use ideology.   Neoliberal ideology is the sum of the public arguments in defense of the practice of neolibealism, and the repetition of those arguments until they appear axiomatic.    Ideology is defined as “an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation,” but the main thing to remember is that successful ideology appears as mere common sense. The claims of ideology are not fashioned to represent actual practices. The purpose of ideology — if public understanding of the practice is likely to engender resistance to power — is to simultaneously conceal that power and ensure that same concealed power’s day-to-day reproduction. The narrative that Maduro and the Bolivarian movement are authoritarian is an ideological, not a factual, claim. The H-Word    Dominant ideologies are “hegemonic,” meaning that most people have so internalized the basic assumptions of the ideology that they are seen as “common sense,” placing those assumptions beyond any critical intervention. Hegemonic ideas and practices are embedded in culture. Successful ideology is hegemonic ideology. The actual rules no longer require external persuasion or force; they have been extensively internalized by most people as “the way things are.” The Maduro-authoritarian narrative is hegemonic. Neoliberal arguments, because they are hegemonic, sound very familiar. They are about the hidden hand of the market, and how it shakes society out as a just and flourishing meritocracy. “Free market” is a kind of benevolent god that we ought to thank for its abundance. And neoliberalism discursively constructs itself as inevitable: Maggie Thatcher’s claim, “There is no alternative.” The TINA-fallacy. Neoliberal language is obfuscatory. The Honduran coup was a “constitutional crisis,” and the current coup attempt against Venezuela is “authoritarianism versus democracy.” No caigas en ese truco, querida Diputada.   Ideological givens are then available to support propaganda — and propaganda is a weapon during military-political operations, like coups d’etat. Propaganda is one weapon in a coordinated attack, and not representative of any species of truth. Truth is incidental to public pronouncements by governments and institutions. The purpose of official public pronouncements is not representative, but persuasive. Official sources aren’t aiming at the truth, unless it is incidental. They are aiming at your support or acquiescence about what they are doing. We want you to break that pattern, not replay it. The motive behind neoliberalism is perpetuation of ruling class power and American international power, and the mechanics are fourfold: capture competitor nations in an American-dominated system, exploit the markets of weaker nations, ensure net flows of wealth from peripheral nations to sustain US consumption, and lock peripheral nations into debt and dependency as leverage to control how they do business. It was this system that Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian movement challenged, and opposition to neoliberalism is precisely what put this movement in the gunsights of the US ruling class and its colonial surrogates in Venezuela. Because it is not the popular leaders (like Zelaya, Chavez, Aristide) that are the primary threat. They focus the threat, and thereby increase it, but the real threat is popular rule. The coup in progress in Venezuela is not against Maduro, per se, but against the majority of poor, non-white Venezuelans. If this propaganda works, the people will resist, and all in the resistance are already pre-demonized by precisely the kind of propaganda you have been clickbaited into repeating. And mark my words, if that resistance is met with a US invasion, it could turn into a bloodbath. The overwhelming majority of Venezuelans will oppose it, and many will actively fight. I have been to Venezuela, seen the racial/class hierarchy up close, drank Polarcitas with them into the wee hours over pollo asado, and walked the mountains with them. They will not back down. They will never accept a foreign army. And a good deal of the armed forces are loyal to the Venezuelan Constitution — the military stopped the last overt US coup attempt in 2002. Do any of us want to be complicit in this? Do not repeat the assertions that are paving the way. The coup in progress is not just Trump; it is Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. It is part and parcel of the neoliberal program, the very same one you are opposing here in the US. That program has been continuous. It is a program of systematic, progressive destabilization. Economic destabilization, social destabilization, and security destabilization. All three of these programs have been carried out through economic warfare, propaganda, and US-funded intermediaries. Please take note, Representative Ocasio-Cortez, that this is not a question of authoritarianism versus democracy, but a question of whether the US ought to determine the future of the people of Venezuela. Please do more to learn about them before you mischaracterize the situation there again. We all make mistakes. The best of us admit them, learn from them, and move on to make new mistakes. The struggle you and I are in together in the US is the same one as those Venezuelans who have invested their hope in the Bolivarian project, warts and all. We are the global anti-austerity movement, the fight against neoliberalism. With great respect and my continued support, Stan Goff   _______________________________________________ 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 Mar 4 22:47:36 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 22:47:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" In-Reply-To: References: <80956428-3642-4B73-89C8-9194B0675E36@illinois.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green > wrote: Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their support for American Empire. ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? DG On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: By Philip Giraldi: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm —mkb _______________________________________________ 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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 01:26:46 2019 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 19:26:46 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] criminalizing even nonviolent civil disobedience-- Action Alert: Oppose House Bill 1633! In-Reply-To: <5c7dabb86734a_27cd3a2f50314f7@asgworker-qmb3-2.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> References: <5c7dabb86734a_27cd3a2f50314f7@asgworker-qmb3-2.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: Legislatures around the country are looking at laws that put heavy penalties on "damage to critical infrastructure". But the way those laws are written, they don't only cover the bombing of bridges or pipelines.   They can mean long prison terms for nonviolent protest actions. Illinois has one of these bills in committee now, HB 1633.   This alert from the IL Green Party explains how to file a 'witness slip' indicating that you oppose the bill.   Legislators do notice when the public is keeping eyes on a bill, and it can make a difference in whether the bill goes forward or not. The hearing is Tuesday afternoon at 4pm, so if you're going to act, submit a slip before then. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Action Alert: Oppose House Bill 1633! Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 22:50:32 +0000 (UTC) From: ILGP Media To: prairiegreens-owner at lists.chambana.net NationBuilder Illinois_Green_Party_Banner_NL.png **// _Action Alert: Oppose House Bill 1633!_ Friend -- The Illinois Green Party opposes*Illinois **House Bill 1633* *, and we ask you to do the same.* HB 1633 is set for a hearing before the House Judiciary - Criminal Committee *tomorrow, Tuesday, March 5th, at 4 p.m.* Below you will find instructions on how to fill out an online witness slip to oppose this noxious legislation, as well as other steps you can take to oppose its passage.  *_Why We Oppose HB 1633_* At best, HB 1633 is an unnecessary bill that creates new draconian penalties for conduct already covered by existing criminal statutes. It undermines the promising reform efforts of many lawmakers who are trying to remedy the harm caused by overcriminalization and mass incarceration in Illinois and nationally, and it will have a chilling impact on free speech. HB 1633 is purportedly designed to protect against “critical damage” to “critical infrastructure facilities.” On the surface, this seems unobjectionable. However, Illinois already has laws on the books to protect against such acts. What this bill actually does is create a broad new offense that harshly punishes vandalizing, defacing, tampering with, or “impeding” the operations of critical infrastructure, a category that includes pipelines, other oil and natural gas facilities, and military and national guard bases. This new criminal offense would be a Class 1 felony, punishable by fines of up to $100,000 and 15 years in prison, *even where there is no actual damage to property.* To be very clear, the Illinois Green Party is a political organization devoted to effecting change through nonviolent and lawful means – with an obvious focus on electoral change. We do not support vandalism and opposing this bill does not imply support for vandalism, which is already a criminal offense. However, we also recognize that nonviolent civil disobedience is as American as apple pie, and has a long, storied tradition as another tactic for raising awareness and building public support for social progress. We oppose it being overly criminalized and punished. We oppose overly criminalizing conduct that may be intended to expose much *greater* corporate crimes against public and environmental health and safety. We also oppose a definition of “critical infrastructure” that includes facilities perpetuating destructive climate change and that facilitate war-making. This is the kind of “infrastructure” that must be phased out, not given special protection. If HB 1633 is passed, an act of civil disobedience that would be a minor offense if committed elsewhere could now result in a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. For example, an activist who spray painted an anti-pipeline slogan on a bulldozer (as our presidential candidate Jill Stein did at Standing Rock in 2016) would be ensnared by this law. Whatever one thinks of the underlying actions, *this is a grotesquely disproportionate penalty.* Similarly, HB 1633 creates new offenses of trespass and aggravated trespass to a critical infrastructure facility, with disproportionate penalties. Currently, a criminal trespass to property is punishable as a Class B or Class A misdemeanor, depending upon the nature of the offense. (720 ILCS 5/21-3.) HB 1633 would elevate the penalty for trespass to a critical infrastructure facility to a Class 4 felony, punishable by fines of up to $1,000 and 3 years in prison. Aggravated trespass to a critical infrastructure facility would occur when “a person who commits a criminal trespass to a critical infrastructure facility” does so “with the intent to damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, or tamper with equipment of the facility, or impede or inhibit operations of the facility.” This would become a Class 3 felony punishable by fines of up to $10,000 and 10 years in prison. Once again, this creates a situation in which an individual engaged in peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience could face years in prison, even if no property damage took place. In addition,*the language penalizing trespass with the intent to “impede or inhibit operations” is overbroad. It could be used to impose severe penalties on individuals whose intent is to expose or gather evidence of operations posing a threat to environmental or public health, such as an oil spill.* Another cause for concern is HB 1633’s amendment to the conspiracy provision of the Criminal Code, which would make any “organization convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage to a critical infrastructure facility, criminal trespass to a critical infrastructure facility, or aggravated criminal trespass to a critical infrastructure facility” criminally liable for fines “of not less than 10 times the minimum fine authorized for the offense.” In sum, this bill, if passed, would create monstrous penalties for nonviolent offenses. At a time when many people, including lawmakers, are finally waking up to the negative impacts mass incarceration has had on our society, and have begun to rectify laws that have over-criminalized certain conduct or imposed unreasonable penalties, *HB1633, if adopted, would be a giant step backwards. By creating a whole new class of nonviolent offenders who could serve serious prison time, it is antithetical to criminal justice reform. *  This bill is also part of a larger national trend of “critical infrastructure” bills promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in order to establish special protections for corporations engaged in harmful practices that attract opposition and protest. There is no real known threat to pipelines from criminals and vandals to justify these bills. They are instead rooted in animus against anti-pipeline protesters and disfavored social movements. *Whenever states enact legislation based on animus towards particular political speech, it has a chilling effect that will be felt widely. *The real targets of these bills are the civil society groups that help organize pipeline protests or support grassroots activists on the ground. The steep fines are meant to silence them and discourage them from supporting such efforts. *For these reasons, we urge you to oppose HB1633*.          _What You Can Do to Oppose HB 1633_ Once again, HB 1633 is set for a hearing before the House Judiciary - Criminal Committee *tomorrow, Tuesday, March 5th, at 4 p.m.* *You can let members of this committee know that you oppose HB 1633 by filling out an online witness slip stating your opposition.* A witness slip is an on-line form that allows citizens to make their support or opposition known to Illinois House and Senate committee members without physically attending a hearing. (Of course, if you happen to be near Springfield, you can also attend the hearing in person.) If you have never filled out a witness slip before, it is best to first create an account by registering here . This is a short and easy process. However, you can also fill out a witness slip as an unregistered user, by following the procedure described beginning on page 21 of this user manual . Once logged in, you can click here to submit your witness slip in opposition to HB 1633. In the top section, enter your name, complete address and phone number. Be sure to fill out each part of the top section – you can enter “Self” under “Firm/Business or Agency” if you do not wish to enter one, and “N/A” if you don’t want to enter a title. The Illinois Green Party has already entered a slip in opposition to this bill, so it is not necessary to fill out section II unless you wish to do so on behalf of a different organization. However, be sure to check “Opposition” to the “Original Bill” in section III. In section IV, check “Record of Appearance Only.” Oral or written statements can only be submitted in person or by contacting the committee chairperson to do so. *Secondly, you can contact your own representative , and/or the members of the House Judiciary - Criminal Committee and ask them to oppose HB 1633.* (If you are not sure who your current representative is, you can check your voter registration card for the district number, or look it up by checking your registration status here .) *Other Illinois Green Party News:* -- *We are also asking for your support on a number of anti-fracking bills this legislative session.* We will follow up with more information soon, but meanwhile, you can view this summary at the website of the Illinois Coalition Against Fracking, a coalition supported by the Illinois Green Party. -- *We are also asking for your support for Senate Bill 141 , an important bill to reform Illinois’ highly repressive ballot access laws,* which unfairly impose ridiculous barriers to the rights of minority party candidates to appear on the ballot. We will be following up with more information on that bill soon. *-- Save the date! Our Spring Conference will be held on Saturday, April 13th, at **Citlalin Gallery, 2005 S. Blue Island, Chicago. *This will be a one-day conference with an emphasis on discussing strategy for 2020; it will also include election of officers for the next year and other important party business. There will also be a fundraising dinner. Details to be announced. *-- Reminder: If you have not already done so, **please become a duespaying member* *of the Illinois Green Party.* Becoming a duespaying member is a requirement for participating in our decision-making. We are a grass-roots party and we rely on member contributions – no corporate funding allowed – to finance our activities. This is the party that fights for you, but we ask you to support it. A political party is only as strong as its members make it, by what they do or fail to do. For “us” to succeed, _you_ need to be an active part of “us.” We are not asking a lot – standard dues are just $60 a year, and only $12 a year for persons of low-income – but we do ask you to make this modest contribution to help our efforts to build a better future for all Illinoisans. ILGP Media http://www.ilgp.org/ -=-=- Illinois Green Party · 213 S Wheaton Ave, Wheaton, IL 60187, United States -=-=- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 04:41:59 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 22:41:59 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" In-Reply-To: References: <80956428-3642-4B73-89C8-9194B0675E36@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Only so long as Israel remains useful to American control of the region, which it most certainly will in the foreseeable future. On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > > On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green wrote: > > Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and > despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of > "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their > support for American Empire. > > > ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? > > > DG > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> By Philip Giraldi: >> >> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm >> >> —mkb >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Mar 5 05:07:00 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 23:07:00 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-neoconservatism notes Message-ID: <306db864-adab-cf7f-5ec1-c8f710a1b7da@forestfield.org> Some items for discussion on AWARE on the Air. Please forgive the crossover between items for anti-neoliberal and anti-neoconservative issues as they tend to run into each other now and again (think of a Venn diagram of two circles with considerable overlap). US Syrian occupation continues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW5NpfYIRNY -- Trump administration announces that "a small peacekeeping group of about 200 will remain in Syria for a period of time". Venezuela: All roads lead to being a Putin puppet in corporate media discourse No quotes or pointers in this but this is shared by others such as Jimmy Dore who pointed out: Anyone for the Venezuelan coup is on the same side as Trump. According to the fake protestations of the corporate media, Trump is widely said to be a Putin puppet, a Manchurian candidate we can't trust. This critique doesn't stand up to scrutiny but Russiagate-repeating media tells us it is true. Therefore those who favor the Venezuelan coup are Putin puppets because they side with a Putin puppet. They're also for foreign election meddling (which is remarkably hypocritical for anyone who uncritically repeats Russiagate stories) because that's what the US did in Venezuela when the US declared Juan Guaidó (a US-friendly Venezuelan stooge) to be the president of Venezuela. Those who oppose the Venezuelan coup are also on the same side as Putin because Putin has clearly objected to the US's actions in Venezuela. Hence both roads lead to siding with Putin in one way or another if we're to take corporate and corporate-friendly media seriously. War: How much war would the US face if it weren't starting wars and attacking people around the world with sanctions? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123100541_pf.html -- a story from January 1, 2010 in which an Afghani wore "explosives belt under his clothes, apparently was allowed to enter the small base after offering to become an informant" and blew up a CIA base where the CIA launched killer drones. While 7 CIA officers and contractors were killed and 6 others were injured in this response, the killer drone attacks have been far more effective at killing people: > The CIA has consistently declined to acknowledge any participation in > the ongoing campaign of airstrikes that killed more than 300 people in > the past 12 months. Then CIA Director Leon Panetta said: > "Those who fell yesterday were far from home and close to the enemy, > doing the hard work that must be done to protect our country from > terrorism," Panetta said in his message to employees. "We owe them our > deepest gratitude, and we pledge to them and their families that we will > never cease fighting for the cause to which they dedicated their lives > -- a safer America." And the Washington Post quoted unknown people as though their words could be taken as official information and true information. For instance: > U.S. intelligence officials vowed that the Wednesday attack would only > increase the agency's resolve. "This attack will be avenged through > successful, aggressive counterterrorism operations," said one official, > speaking on the condition of anonymity. but wouldn't it be more productive to know that vengeance is a never-ending cause for war therefore vengeance can't make anyone safer? If any other country were doing what the US did and is doing now (killing people with drones) the US would call them "terrorists". So this means the US government is engaged in state-sponsored terrorism when the US launches its drone strikes. When US media goes into some detail about who was killed on one side ("Many of the slain -- including the base chief, a mother of three young children -- were seasoned hands in the agency's counterterrorism operations.") but not the side where the missiles landed, we're left with questions about those killed such as how many children or mothers were killed in the drone attacks? We only know that each time a killer drone is used most of the people who are killed had nothing to do with fighting the US, and everyone killed is killed without charges, evidence, or trial (extrajudicial assassination). Perhaps it is highly unwise to let any political candidate slide when they express support for the drone war (including Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)) War and health care: Could it be that so-called "terrorism" is vastly overstated in the lives of most Americans and the US is better served by taking money from the military to spend on other programs? https://shadowproof.com/2009/12/29/terrorism-still-less-deadly-in-us-than-lack-of-health-insurance-salmonella/ -- From 2009: "Terrorism Still Less Deadly in US Than Lack of Health Insurance, Salmonella" Fake news: Venezuela -- the US attacks continue to fail, is more militarism and attempted gun running next? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEqXCjwzObU -- Corporate and Canadian state-owned media lie about the Tienditas Bridge in Cucuta (connecting the Venezuelan state of Tachira to the Colombian department of Santander North). This bridge never opened to traffic. As of late 2018 the Colombian Ministry of Transport was bragging about what the bridge would look like if it were inaugurated and open to the public, so there are plenty of pictures of an empty highway to show. On February 6, Mike Pompeo tweeted that Venezuela put down trucking containers and a tanker to block the bridge in order to prevent so-called "humanitarian aid" from entering Venezuela. This was not true. CNN, The Guardian, the CBC, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, and the BBC all repeated this false information. Some of these organizations also sent reporters. There are border crossings available (contrary to the BBC's claim that there's "No way through for humanitarian aid"). People use these crossings -- the Simon Bolivar & Francisco de Paula Santander international bridges -- daily. CNN's reporter stood on one of these bridges and showed people leaving Venezuela framing it as though they were fleeing Venezuela. Had CNN turned their cameras around a bit they would have also shown tens of thousands of Colombians & Venezuelans move across the bridge in both directions. CNN also claimed that Venezuelans must go to Colombia to buy food and essential goods. As the teleSUR reporter notes, "Colombians actually take advantage of subsidized foods and products which are distributed by the government of Venezuela and local communes to citizens in order to sell them on the black market. Things regular Colombians haven't been able to easily access or afford in their own country." https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezuela-bridge-aid-pompeo-1.5018432 -- On February 15, the CBC tacitly admitted their misreporting and repeated other doubtful claims at the same time: > CBC News was among the many news organizations that used the photo in > stories, stating that Maduro's forces had purposely blocked the > Tienditas Bridge with shipping containers and a fuel tanker. > > Yes, Maduro ordered the containers be put there, and no, he does not > want international aid coming in through that corridor. He maintains > there is no food shortage in Venezuela, despite numerous reports to the > contrary, including from Human Rights Watch. There is no apparent food shortage, says Max Blumenthal in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbXqGiNlWWw. In an interview with RT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rePzgMjlfHQ he says: > [In his Grayzone piece] I was in a fairly-upscale neighborhood in > Caracas, the supermarkets look just like the supermarkets in my hometown > of Washington, D.C.. I could also tell you that I was out today in some > of the poorer areas of Caracas and I actually encountered the Vice > President of Venezuela, Delsimo Rodriguez, and the Mayor of Caracas, > Eric Afarias, at open-air food markets around the city where food is > being distributed basically for free to the poor and working-class > communities. The problem here is speculation: there are high prices on > food and random situations. So that has to do with the capitalist class > here that supports the opposition; US sanctions are actually allowing > them to basically hoard goods and to make maximum profit. So that's the > irony here: it's that many of the supporters of the opposition and the > big business forces behind the opposition are actually cashing in on the > economic crisis. As of now, we don't have footage from the US-friendly news sources showing what they claim -- empty shelves due to food shortages, people starving as a result of a dictatorial Venezuelan government forcing them to remain hungry. What we do see comes from Blumenthal's Grayzone Project in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbXqGiNlWWw (grocery store footage) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlX3yfXNX_g (open-air food market footage). teleSUR says: > After all, the cost of this blockade is over $30 billion and they're > [the US] sending this so-called "humanitarian aid" for $20 million? Venezuela: US attempts again to push through its so-called "humanitarian aid" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mUhnn0OjnE -- RT's report on 2nd US so-called "humanitarian aid" effort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CsJqEkam80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48yZm2_-KWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS87_x7dfn4 -- teleSUR reports that the bus set on fire was a false flag attack on Venezuela staged by the US to give the US an excuse to impose their will as their recognized self-determined "president" Juan Guaidó recently tweeted: Translated from https://twitter.com/jguaido/status/1099497510836547585: > Today's events have forced me to make a decision - to formally ask the > international community to consider all options, to liberate the people > of Venezuela, who are struggling and will continue to fight. Venezuela: RT's summary to date (2019-02-24) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TEQVUURaYU -- RT reports: According to the "No war in Venezuela" movement there are now 150 campaigns worldwide against interference in the country. Venezuela: from the inside https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqQKq8yU7h0 -- Max Blumenthal talks to teleSUR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trT51Ykqe8k -- Max Blumenthal asks Venezuelans where the communist dictatorship is. One man replying to his inquiry laughs. Citing a CNN report that claimed: > [S]o many others are rummaging through trash, something you and I would > consider unconceivable, so common wherever we saw there, I mean even > ourselves we found it quite hard to get food and that is so staggeringly > the reason why people are so furious right now. But the people interviewed by Blumenthal say this is not the case. To the contrary, it appears that capitalism is alive and well in Venezuela. Poor people in the US also eat from garbage cans and the US doesn't do what it can easily afford to do to house the homeless, eliminate "food deserts", and guarantee other necessities (potable water, education, health care, to name a few things). I don't think anyone in the US would claim that Americans "commonly" eat from the trash. War: Child soldier documentaries from RT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ectRrctL_TE -- Syrian child soldiers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5dioL32Be8 -- Filipino child soldiers Coming soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4vt3EUjALs -- Machete: Boys of Congo (Congolese child soldiers). This is a trailer. Russiagate: Maria Butina https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFOTJLO5O1Q -- Maria Butina's lawyer Robert Driscoll says she might be deported back to Russia as early as March. She was detained, mistreated in prison, and the US-friendly media repeated (sans investigation) US government claims that she used sexual favors to get special treatment. There's no evidence that this was never true and eventually the US government had to stop making the claim. Charges against her were "Conspiracy to defraud the United States" and "Violation of 'Agents of Foreign Governments' code" (FARA -- Foreign Agents Registration Act, the same thing the US government said RT would be guilty of if they didn't register with the US government). It's important to note that Butina was never charged with espionage. As far as the evidence goes, this entire case looks like Butina needed to fill out FARA registration forms and she would have been in the clear. But she didn't and that looked like an opportunity for the Russophobic Permanent Government/Deep State, and a means by which the US-friendly media could go beyond the charges (in other words, inventing lies) by making her out to be a secret Russian agent. In fact, she was merely a gun enthusiast who happened to be a Russian national. Butina was looking to work with the NRA on how to increase gun ownership in Russia. As far as the evidence goes, she did nothing secretly. She was publishing her views and goals on social media. The selectivity and harshness of Butina's treatment make this case stand out as a Russiagate story. The CBC, BBC, and RT are all state-owned news broadcasters. But the CBC & BBC are US-friendly. RT has published a number of stories critical of the US government and clearly illustrated the goals of US policy. So it's hypocritical but not surprising when only RT is singled out for losing their Capitol credentials and forced to register under FARA, both of which happened. Maria Butina's oversight in not registering under FARA came at a time when the Permanent Government/Deep State was looking for a means to pin blame for Hillary Clinton's loss on Russia and gin up Russophobia in general for future use (it's probably easier to get more anti-Russian sanctions passed if the US government believes the US public won't question those sanctions because they are well-trained to hate Russia and Russians). But there's no good reason to single out Maria Butina for punishment or place her in solitary confinement, which happened. Robert Driscoll says Maria Butina is now out of solitary confinement, doing well physically, and doing as well as can be expected under incarceration. Butina is looking forward to returning to her family. Butina's deportation is mandatory (Butina plead guilty to a felony for which deportation is mandatory) and the deportation date is up to the judge. American Empire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0c-s7bbuF0 -- Daniel McAdams: US has policy of "world domination", also Bolton threw additional terms on the table which caused the DPRK meeting to end without agreement because Bolton wants other countries to be held to agreements but Bolton doesn't want the US to be held to any treaty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4q92BDJmpU -- John Bolton refers to the Monroe Doctrine as he pushes for a "broad coalition" against Venezuela. India/Pakistan jet dogfight may lead to more militarism, nuclear war https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxzCTI_hCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeZ36JYd2T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbeI87dQl0k -- India and Pakistan are launching airstrikes at each other. A group we're told are Pakistani killed 40 Indians in a suicide bombing. Interestingly, the media seem to have no clear stake in this and we get a rare glimpse of what happens when corporate masters don't tell them which view to hide or take; it's interesting that this is not being critiqued as a lesson for how untrustworthy so many media outlets are on so many other wars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7mxJ9JRo7w -- India's Air Force claims it shot down a Pakistani drone in northwest India (Rajasthan). Also worth noting: India has Russian and French jets, Pakistan has Russian and American jets but it's unclear which jets were used in the prior strikes. A Pakistani jet (possibly a US-made F-16, which is a US-Pakistan trade agreement violation) shot down an Indian MIG-21, the Pakistani pilot was beaten by locals, captured, and released. Iran: IAEA says Iran is abiding by nuclear treaty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V5sYJPVMnM -- Iran is compliant with the 2015 JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), contrary to US government claims. US left this deal last year, but other members (Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, China) are keeping the deal. Daniel Lazare is interviewed. Skripal: 1 year on, we still have no clear story of what happened to the Skripals, no evidence to back PM May's claims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJgTiP6WBss https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/seymour-hersh-interview-novichok-russian-hacking-9-11-nerve-agent-attack-a8459596.html -- Sy Hersh has not investigated the story but says the Russian mafia is involved in this: > Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version of the > Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: “The story > of novichok poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most > likely talking to British intelligence services about Russian organised > crime.” The unfortunate turn of events with the contamination of other > victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements > rather than state-sponsored actions – though this files in the face of > the UK government's position. Hersh told RT: > Sy Hersh: Those two [the two men interviewed on RT] were helping the > British intelligence services with information about the Russian mafia. > That's what they were doing here [in the UK]. In other words, the people > that were high on the list of people who would want to hurt him [Sergey > Skripal] would be the Russian mafia. Russians, but not the Russian > government. > > Afshin Rattansi, RT host: Do you mean the Skripals? > > Sy Hersh: Yeah, I mean that was the understanding. There was also some > reporting out of Europe about that that's been pretty much widespread. > [...] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blVwDo3B5nY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67ZJ6dgdpic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRhKFcYWyY -- UK bought Sergey Skripal's home and everything in it, killed his pets, and both of the Skripals won't speak freely to media (Sergey's daughter Yulia was in one Reuters interview which was not long, detailed, and sounded scripted). We only recently learned of two new people involved in this -- a mother (who just happened to be the Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army) and daughter who are said to have happened upon the scene first discovering the Skripals slumped over in the Salisbury park. But we don't have any clear information on what poisoned the Skripals, how it was administered, who did it, or why. Prime Minister May's allegations that the Russian state did the poisoning is not backed by evidence, just speculation and fearmongering (including the two Russian men who were seen wandering around Salisbury and later interviewed on RT). We're told the poison used was one of the "Novichok" (Russian for "newcomer") class of 'nerve agents' but questions remain: those poisons are said to be widely known about (published in books for decades), lethal in remarkably small doses, and the variant used is said to expire quickly when exposed to air. The poison alleged to have been used against the Skripals is also said to be impossible for civilians to make in their home (one needs lab equipment to do it) and yet UK's Porton Down lab is within driving distance of the park where the Skripals were found slumped over, and also near the site where others were poisoned (including British nationals: a police officer, a woman, Dawn Sturgess, who later died, and a man, Charlie Rowley). What was the poison involved? Who made the poison? How was the poison transported from where it was made to where the Skripals came into contact with it? Was the poison made at Porton Down? How did the Skripals come into contact with the poison? If the poison was so lethal why didn't the poison kill everyone involved (only one human died from this and she might have been a registered heroin addict according to an earlier RT report)? PM May claims she has seen evidence against Russia regarding this but apparently even a year later she's not sharing the details which ostensibly back her allegations. The UK still won't answer questions for Russia, despite their accusations and that Yulia Skripal is a Russian national. Russia: INF treaty officially suspended with US 6 months early https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0c-s7bbuF0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPTlJMmf1C0 -- 6 months ahead of INF treaty expiration, Russian Pres. Putin mirrors the US in suspending the INF treaty. -J From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 09:00:56 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 03:00:56 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: the horrifying global famines of the british empire -- 3/05/19 References: <6557fc90400ccd10e100a13f4.ef875bc12a.20190305084730.f53694db5b.964775b8@mail186.sea22.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: "DelanceyPlace.com" > Date: March 5, 2019 at 2:48:03 AM CST > To: > Subject: the horrifying global famines of the british empire -- 3/05/19 > Reply-To: "DelanceyPlace.com" > > > View this email in your browser > > Forward > Share > Tweet > Share > +1 > Pin > Today's selection -- from Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis. > In a global calamity still largely unnoticed by historians, in the late 1800s, 30 to 50 million people died of famine in Egypt, India, and China, due in part to British imperial practices: > > "[When President Grant toured the globe in the late 1870s after his presidency, his party had] successive encounters with epic drought and famine in Egypt, India and China. It was almost as if the Americans were inadvertently following in the footprints of a monster whose colossal trail of destruction extended from the Nile to the Yellow Sea. > > "As contemporary readers of Nature and other scientific journals were aware, it was a disaster of truly planetary magnitude, with drought and famine reported as well in Java, the Philippines, New Caledonia, Korea, Brazil, southern Africa and the Maghreb. No one had hitherto suspected that synchronous extreme weather was possible on the scale of the entire tropical monsoon belt plus northern China and North Africa. Nor was there any historical record of famine afflicting so many far-flung lands simultaneously. Although only the roughest estimates of mortality could be made, it was horrifyingly clear that the million Irish dead of 1845-47 had been multiplied by tens. The total toll of conventional warfare from Austerlitz to Antietam and Sudan, according to calculations by one British journalist, was probably less than the mortality in southern India alone. Only China's Taiping Revolution (1851-64), the bloodiest civil war in world history with an estimated 20 million to 30 million dead, could boast as many victims. > > "But the great drought of 1876-79 was only the first of three global sub­sistence crises in the second half of Victoria's reign. In 1889-91 dry years again brought famine to India, Korea, Brazil and Russia, although the worst suffering was in Ethiopia and the Sudan, where perhaps one-third of the population died. Then in 1896-1902, the monsoons again repeat­edly failed across the tropics and in northern China. Hugely destructive epidemics of malaria, bubonic plague, dysentery, smallpox and cholera culled millions of victims from the: ranks of the famine-weakened. The European empires, together with Japan and the United States, rapaciously exploited the opportunity to wrest new colonies, expropriate communal lands, and tap novel sources of plantation and mine labor. What seemed from a metropolitan perspective the nineteenth century's final blaze of imperial glory was, from an Asian or African viewpoint, only the hideous light of a giant funeral pyre. > > "The total human toll of these three waves of drought, famine and dis­ease could not have been less than 30 million victims. Fifty million dead might not be unrealistic. Although the famished nations themselves were the chief mourners, there were also contemporary Europeans who understood the moral magnitude of such carnage and how fundamentally it annulled the apologies of empire. Thus the Radical journalist William Digby, principal chronicler of the 1876 Madras famine, prophesized on the eve of Queen Victoria's death that when 'the part played by the British Empire in the nineteenth cen­tury is regarded by the historian fifty years hence, the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians would be its principal and most notorious monu­ment.' A most eminent Victorian, the famed naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, the codiscoverer with Darwin of the theory of natural selection, passionately agreed. Like Digby, he viewed mass starvation as avoidable political tragedy, not 'natural' disaster. In a famous balance-sheet of the Victorian era, published in 1898, he characterized the famines in India and China, together with the slum poverty of the industrial cities, as 'the most terrible failures of the century.' > > > The Great Famine of the 1870s had devastating effects in India. > "But while the Dickensian slum remains in the world history curric­ulum, the famine children of 1876 and 1899 have disappeared. Almost without exception, modern historians writing about nineteenth-century world history from a metropolitan vantage-point have ignored the late Victorian mega-droughts and famines that engulfed what we now call the 'third world.' Eric Hobsbawm, for example, makes no allusion in his famous trilogy on nineteenth-century history to the worst famines in perhaps 500 years in India and China, although he does mention the Great Hunger in Ireland as well as the Russian famine of 1891-92. Like­wise, the sole reference to famine in David Landes's The Wealth and Poverty of Nations -- magnum opus meant to solve the mystery of inequality between nations -- is the erroneous claim that British railroads eased hun­ger in India. Numerous other examples could be cited of contemporary historians' curious neglect of such portentous events. It is like writing the history of the late twentieth century without mentioning the Great Leap Forward famine: or Cambodia's killing fields. The great famines are the missing pages -- the absent defining moments, if you prefer -- in virtually every overview of the Victorian era. Yet there: are compelling, even urgent, reasons for revisiting this secret history. > > "At issue is not simply that tens of millions of poor rural people died appallingly, but that they died in a manner, and for reasons, that contra­dict much of the conventional understanding of the economic history of the nineteenth century. For example, how do we explain the fact that in the very half-century when peacetime famine permanently disappeared from Western Europe, it increased so devastatingly throughout much of the colonial world? Equally how do we weigh smug claims about the life-saving benefits of steam transportation and modern grain markets when so many millions, especially in British India, died alongside railroad tracks or on the steps of grain depots? And how do we account in the case of China for the drastic decline in state capacity and popular welfare, especially famine relief, that seemed to follow in lockstep with the empire's forced 'opening' to modernity by Britain and the other Powers? > > "We not are dealing, in other words, with 'lands of famine' becalmed in stagnant backwaters of world history, but with the fate of tropical human­ity at the precise moment (1870-1914) when its labor and produces were being dynamically conscripted into a London-centered world economy. Millions died, not outside the 'modern world system,' but in the very process of being forcibly incorporated into its economic and political structures. They died in the golden age of Liberal Capitalism; indeed, many were murdered, as we shall see, by the theological application of the sacred principles of Smith, Bentham and Mill. Yet the only twentieth-cen­tury economic historian who seems to have clearly understood that the great Victorian famines (at least, in the Indian case) were integral chapters in the history of capitalist modernity was Karl Polanyi in his 1944 book The Great Transformation. 'The actual source of famines in the last fifty years,' he wrote, 'was the free marketing of grain combined with local failure of incomes.'" > Sign Up Here > > Late Victorian Holocausts > Author: Mike Davis > Publisher: Verso Books > Copyright Mike Davis 2001, 2002, 2017 > Pages: 6-9 > If you wish to read further: Click for Purchase Options > > About Us > DelanceyPlace.com is a brief daily email with an excerpt or quote we view as interesting or noteworthy. > > Follow Us > > > Copyright © 2019 DelanceyPlace.com, All rights reserved. > In the past you provided Delanceyplace with your email address. If you no longer wish to receive our emails please click unsubscribe, to send an email requesting to be removed. > > Our mailing address is: > DelanceyPlace.com > 1735 Market Street > Suite 2501 > Philadelphia, Pa 19103 > > Add us to your address book > > > Want to change how you receive these emails? > You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Tue Mar 5 14:01:41 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:01:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" References: <636017361.9326884.1551794501162.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <636017361.9326884.1551794501162@mail.yahoo.com> In fact, that's how our own senator Dick Durbin was first elected to Congress by defeating Rep. Paul Findley, considered too friendly to an Arab constituent:  AIPAC bankrolled the Durbin campaign which catapulted his national political career.  Midge O'Brien -----Original Message----- From: David Green via Peace-discuss To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: Peace-discuss Sent: Mon, Mar 4, 2019 10:42 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" Only so long as Israel remains useful to American control of the region, which it most certainly will in the foreseeable future. On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brussel, Morton K wrote: On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green wrote: Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their support for American Empire. ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? DG On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: By Philip Giraldi: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm —mkb_______________________________________________ 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 Wed Mar 6 02:59:04 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 20:59:04 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AOTA #473 notes Message-ID: <959f5f76-fab5-7bc0-5cc4-1f5b31cce4c4@forestfield.org> AWARE on the Air #473 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP9PFO7mehA Links to items referenced on the show. Most feared countries in the world -- The US is feared by more countries than any other. http://dailyinfographics.eu/most-feared-countries-on-the-world/ https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101214030453AA5xlku Alfred McCoy on "The End of Our World Order Is Imminent" https://www.thenation.com/article/end-of-world-order-empire-climate-change/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/01/how-climate-change-could-end-washingtons-global-dominion/ Alfred McCoy's "In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power" ISBN-10: 1608467732 ISBN-13: 978-1608467730 Halford Mackinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halford_Mackinder "The History of the Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides Text: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7142 Audio: https://librivox.org/the-history-of-the-peloponnesian-war-by-thucydides The referenced quote comes from The Melian Dialogue -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue -- which comes with various translations: "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" is Crawley's translation. Warner translated this line as: "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept". Jowett translated this line as: "the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must". Thomas Hobbes translated this as: "they that have odds of power exact as much as they can, and the weak yield to such conditions as they can get". David Harvey's Anti-Capitalist Chronicles https://anticapitalistchronicles.libsyn.com/ RSS feed: https://anticapitalistchronicles.libsyn.com/rss -- a number of episodes focus on China Louis Proyect on Uyghur oppression https://louisproyect.org/2009/07/07/uighur-oppression/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/20/chinas-persecution-of-the-uyghur-people/ https://louisproyect.org/2018/09/25/china-and-the-uyghurs/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/04/the-uighur-question-a-civil-society-solution/ "Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization" by Nicholson Baker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Smoke ISBN: 9781416572466 "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins Complete book: http://www.resistir.info/livros/john_perkins_confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man.pdf "The New Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins ISBN: 9781626566743 "Capital in the Twenty-first Century" by Thomas Piketty Complete book: https://dowbor.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14Thomas-Piketty.pdf Wikipedia's "List of states with nuclear weapons" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Mar 6 04:35:22 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 22:35:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] France's class wars, by Serge Halimi Message-ID: https://mondediplo.com/2019/02/02gilets-jaunes-class-war The working class was supposed to have been edged out of active politics, but instead France’s elites have been frightened into making concessions by this winter’s uprising of the yellow vests. Its continuing popularity suggests that it is recasting French politics. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 6 05:14:36 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 23:14:36 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, March 5, 2019 Message-ID: <981EC1EE-C76A-4F5F-8C7C-D249E29FFA4B@gmail.com> Urbana Public Television Check out today’s edition of “AWARE on the Air” https://youtu.be/VP9PFO7mehA ### From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 10:48:05 2019 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Omar and How's that workin' for ya'..??? References: <1581402765.920718.1551869285642.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1581402765.920718.1551869285642@mail.yahoo.com> We live in a fascinating political era. The 'NWO / deep state' is alive and well in its quest for global domination with the help of its formidable accomplices...that being all the major Jewish organizations. They, collectively, all are proponents of open borders, multiculturalism, diversity, PC (humanitarian concerns are just a cover) They have weaponized all these concepts to enact an assault on white nationalists who they believe are their most important enemies. Of course, the Palestinians are hypocritically not included in this drive.............................................. ADL’s Echoes and Reflections Program Reaches 1100 at Education Conference https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/education-outreach/Integrating-Multicultural-and-Anti-Bias-Education-into-Early-Childhood-Programs.pdf .................................................................... They have completed transformed European and American cultures with their contrived mass immigration, but in the process have brought into the fold people like  Rep. Ilhan Omar who is willing to stand up and confront them. She has more power than Cynthia McKinney (see below). Kicking her off the Foreign Affairs committee would confirm Jewish inordinate power. The elephant in the room is consternating....ha ha. House Foreign Affairs chairman says he won't push Omar off committee | | | | | | | | | | | House Foreign Affairs chairman says he won't push Omar off committee Caroline Kelly, CNN The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Tuesday that he does not want Rep. Ilhan Omar removed f... | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 7 21:47:50 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 15:47:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Andrew Bacevich: The U.S.-Saudi Relationship Is a Principal Source of Instability in the Middle East | Daily Digest 03/07/2019 References: <7c55dbbfa32e541749065a92a.702ceae11f.20190307195618.0166df0774.7d7ae263@mail141.atl61.mcsv.net> Message-ID: <6E20CDC8-A31C-43F0-AEA6-D984193091E6@gmail.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Democracy Now! > Date: March 7, 2019 at 1:56:46 PM CST > To: > Subject: Andrew Bacevich: The U.S.-Saudi Relationship Is a Principal Source of Instability in the Middle East | Daily Digest 03/07/2019 > Reply-To: Democracy Now! > > > Bacevich: Questioning U.S.-Israel Ties Has Long Been Impermissible in Congress, But That's Changing & War Crimes in Yemen? U.S. & U.K. Arms Killed & Injured Nearly 1,000 Civilians in Saudi-Led Attack & More > Not displaying correctly? > View it in your browser. > Democracy Now! Daily Digest > A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González > > Thursday, March 7, 2019 > democracynow.org > Stories > > Andrew Bacevich: The U.S.-Saudi Relationship Is a Principal Source of Instability in the Middle East > We look at a number of recent developments in U.S.-Saudi relations, a day after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a confirmation hearing for retired four- ... Read More → > > Bacevich: Questioning U.S.-Israel Ties Has Long Been Impermissible in Congress, But That's Changing > House Democrats will vote today on a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. The resolution is seen as a direct rebuke of recent comments by Minnesota ... Read More → > > > War Crimes in Yemen? U.S. & U.K. Arms Killed & Injured Nearly 1,000 Civilians in Saudi-Led Attack > As Yemen faces the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, a major new report has been released documenting the role that the U.S. and Europe have played in the deaths ... Read More → > > > U.S. Has Supplied UAE $27B in Arms Despite Nation's Links to Torture, Mercenaries & Child Soldiers > We look at how U.S. weapons are supporting the ongoing devastation in Yemen with William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center ... Read More → > Headlines → > DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen Denies Migrants Are Held in Cages > ICE Kept “Anti-Trump Protest Spreadsheet” to Track NYC Activists > U.S. Kept Secret List of Journalists and Activists at Southern Border > Trump Ends Reporting Requirement of Civilian Deaths from U.S. Drones > Report Details U.S. Role in Civilian Deaths from Saudi-Led War in Yemen > Syria: Hundreds of ISIS Fighters Surrender to Kurdish Forces > Sen. Martha McSally Says She Was Raped by Superior in U.S. Air Force > Second Judge Blocks Trump Admin’s Citizenship Question on 2020 Census > Michael Cohen to Congress: White House Lawyer Edited 2017 Testimony > NASA Plane Barred from Monitoring Pollution After Hurricane Harvey > Trump Administration Proposes Ending Protections for Gray Wolves > FDA Finds Asbestos in Cosmetics from Claire’s and Justice Brands > R. Kelly Arrested for Failure to Pay $160,000 in Child Support > Mark Zuckerberg Claims Facebook Will Become “Privacy-Focused” > Democrats Introduce Bill to Restore Net Neutrality > House Vote on Anti-Semitism Back on Amid Debate Over Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Critique of Israel > Forward this email → > Donate today → > Follow > > > COLUMN > > > The Time for Medicare-for-All Has Finally Arrived > WEB EXCLUSIVE > > > Historian Greg Grandin on the Racist and Violent History of U.S. Border Agents > WORK WITH DEMOCRACY NOW! > > > Junior Systems Administrator > SPEAKING EVENTS > > > 3/14 New York, NY > 3/15 Denver, CO > > 207 W 25th St — 11th Floor — New York, NY — 10001 > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License > You are receiving this email because you signed up at democracynow.org. > unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Mar 8 03:42:16 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 21:42:16 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] anti-neoliberalism notes Message-ID: <717367f7-79b0-4571-4ba4-09e7b95b13e5@forestfield.org> A few extra topics (in addition to those already posted) to spur discussion on News from Neptune. Have a good show guys. Russiagate: A new reason for the conspiracy -- jobs! Also, Russiagate's not dead! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rfbR66Qxps -- Twitter apparently has a head of "Site Integrity": Yoel Roth, Ph.D. Twitter released data describing 228 accounts they had somehow linked to Russians which Twitter accusing of being "Russian bots" (accounts set up to allow organizations to automatedly post tweets from multiple accounts in order to create the appearance of multiple people chiming in on some issue all taking the same side). These are the accounts we're supposed to believe put Trump in the White House. Another set of Twitter data identified the same accounts to be somehow connected to Venezuela (which is supposed to make anything posted by these accounts suspect). Someone named Josh Emerson (@josh_emerson) told Yoel Roth that his data was confusing: > [a screenshot showing two lists of alleged 'bot' accounts from > Twitter] The IRA accounts are on the left, The Venezuela (January 2019, > set 2) accounts are on the right. They are the same damn bots. So which > is it? Are they Russian or are they Venezuelan? Roth replied: > In this case, we initially misidentified 228 accounts as connected to > Russia. As our investigations into their activity continued, we > uncovered additional information allowing us to more confidently > associate them with Venezuela. And Roth tells us the data he's referring to is available for download at about.twitter.com in their "election integrity hub". The replies making fun of Twitter's entire story here came thick and fast: > Malcolm Fleschner: [Maxwell Smart, from "Get Smart" voice] "Would you > believe... Iran?" > > Unfiltered: Well isn't that convenient, a movable boogyman data set. > > It's Me: All jokes aside, Yoel [Roth] seriously sounds like a > ghosthunter. Aaron Maté points us to a new reason for Russiagate: jobs. > Aaron Maté: Jimmy, this is an underrated aspect of the Russiagate > racket: because [...] it's a jobs program. You go to Penn, you have [an] > expensive fancy-sounding Ph.D., and you need to justify it in some way, > and you also need a job. And so Russiagate has been like a cottage > industry: all these think tanks, data analytic things -- it's a jobs > program. On the one hand it's capitalizing on a general human need to do > fulfilling work, people want to do fulfilling work, and that's what it > is for this subset of people who drink the Kool-Aid and get paid lots of > money to study 'Russian bots'. Not because Russian bots are any actual > threat to anybody, or even if Russian bots exist because, as you pointed > out, the Russian bots are concocted by the very people supposedly > investigating them. But because warning us about Russian bots serves a > narrative: it keeps us scared of Russia, and the people who profit off > of tensions with Russia make a lot of money (like weapons manufacturers, > and foreign governments who -- > > Jimmy Dore: And New Knowledge who will sell you protection from Russian > bots. Labor/walkout: Exploitation tip -- to keep workers economically dependent, one must pay workers enough to not be able to afford to walk off the job. https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/ohio-sonic-workers-walk-off-job-leave-scathing-note-bashing-terrible-management-the-whole-store-has-quit -- Three Sonic (drive-thru, fast food) restaurants in Ohio had no employees as everyone on staff walked out to protest new management. > According to reports, Circleville, Lancaster and Grove City have all > experienced complete staff walkouts after the fast-food stores were > purchased by new ownership. Why did they leave? > According to the Ohio news outlet, employees claimed they saw their > wages reduced from at or near-minimum wage to $4.00/hour for tipped > employees, although a spokesperson for Sonic Drive-In claimed "no wage > rates at any level" decreased under the new ownership in a statement > obtained by Fox News. > > The changes reportedly pushed the employees over the edge, leading them > to walk out of the store during their shifts, turn off the lights and > lock the door behind them. > > Circleville and Lancaster stores both were left with notes blasting the > new management as the reason for the walkout. > > Circleville left a handwritten noted signed by the “Ex Sonic Crew” that > blamed the new owners for the negative change. See attached images or the following URLs for the signs: Circleville: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0IveBVX4AA4nI_.jpg Lancaster: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0MQQwIXQAAH-wi.jpg The Circleville sign reads: > Warning > > Due to terrible management the whole store has quit. The company has > been sold to people that don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves. > Sorry for the inconvenience, but our team refuses to work for a company > that treats their employees like they are shit when they have put > everything into this store. We have worked too hard for too long. We are > all off to better things. So to the New Owners FUCK You! > > Sincerely, Ex Sonic Crew The Lancaster sign reads: > Subject: Sonic 955 > To: Lance Lamphar; Rick Fee; Sara Holben; Sherri Burchett > (sburchett at houchensindustries.com) > > This is the Management team at Lancaster! > > We would just like to tell you cause you are the most trashiest company > we have ever seen. To hide such information from your "team" is > unbelievably selfish and inconsiderate to the "people you care about." > You guys pushed someone who has 11 years of sonic under their belt for > someone who has only been in the company for 6 months. She was loyal and > would/did anything you (LANCE) asked of her. She gave 11 years of her > blood, sweat and tears into this company only to get NOTHING but > BACKSTABBED. So what makes you think that ANYONE else would want to work > for someone as SLEEZY as you. So since 11 years practically means shit > to this company anymore, you just lost another 9 years... and 8 years... > and 5 years... and 2 years... and 2 years... and 1 year. > > Lance- You let people work underneath the table at your stores but makes > other stores feel like shit because their labor is high. Why you have 8 > workers on the same shift, but only 4 people on your clock. You > manipulate and try to come off to be this wonderful guy but the more I > get to know you, [the] more shady you appear to be. You knew the entire > time that the company was getting sold. BY THE WAY GM'S, YOU'LL FIND > THIS OUT TOMORROW, threw Sherri under the bus to save YOUR ASS and > practically lost her position. This is a joke. YOU'RE A JOKE. You say > racist things, you put people down and make them feel below you, you > push push push push people to make them better or say "you can do better > than this... blah blah blah" DO WHAT I DO FOR A WEEK AND SEE IF YOU > LAST. It's hard to take [criticism] from someone who is the laziest > person ever. > > I NOW understand why this store can't keep a general manager. It wasn't > because they were horrible it's because they were as frimey as you > (LANCE) but they just got caught by the right person. > > Signed, THE BREAKFAST CLUB An unnamed representative for Sonic Drive-In told Fox News: > no wage rates at any level decreased under the new ownership, although > Sonic carhops may receive tips in addition to their wages. Labor: Should sex work be decriminalized and/or regulated? https://daily.jstor.org/regulating-sex-work-in-medieval-europe/ -- "Regulating Sex Work in Medieval Europe" brings up interesting contradictions for those who want to make sex work a 1st class business opportunity today. A group called "Decriminalize Sex Work" wants to end prohibitions on selling sex in the United States including ending arrests of sex workers, and bring about regulations for sex workers. This would make sex work like any other business -- tax-paying, working within regulations, possibly being licensed -- and bring up some contradictions too. Historian Ruth Mazo Karras wrote that Medieval Europe gave sex work legal status but didn't get much respect from the community (the work was considered 'sinful'). > Different parts of Europe handled this tension in different ways. Some > municipalities licensed brothels, set up red-light districts, or created > municipally-owned sex work establishments. Publicly-owned, regulated, or > taxed sex trade could be an important source of income for a town. For > sex workers, these practices sometimes provided protection. In London, > for example, having a legal status freed sex workers from harassment by > city authorities. And regulations in Southwark and Sandwich, England, > limited brothel owners’ ability to financially exploit workers with > predatory loans and high prices for ale. > > Official brothels could also breed collective action by bringing the > workers together under one roof. In several cases, French sex workers > organized to protest when a female brothel keeper was replaced by a man, > or when other sex workers operating clandestinely threatened their > business. > > But official status and recognition could also be a tool for controlling > workers. Regulations often meant they had to work, and sometimes live, > in a brothel. Some municipal brothels in continental Europe restricted > sex workers’ mobility and limited their ability to leave the profession. > In some cases, the rules also made it clear that women could be raped. > “As a municipal service, prostitution was made available to all who > qualified, and the women who provided it had no say in determining how > their bodies were to be used,” Karras writes. One could imagine another conflict between one deciding whom to have sex with ad-hoc and performing undesired sex work due to observing public accommodation law. Legal complications come up for business/public interactions and don't often come up in discussions about regulating sex work. Recently the US Supreme Court decided Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission -- a Colorado bakery (Masterpiece Cakeshop) sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission after Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips said he didn't want to make a custom cake for a gay male couple. Masterpiece would sell the couple a pre-baked cake that the couple could decorate themselves but Masterpiece would not do the custom decoration work requested by the gay couple because homosexual marriage conflicted with Phillips' strongly-held religious beliefs. Masterpiece held that cake decoration was the medium of Phillips' expression, so to compel Masterpiece to customize the cake for the gay couple would be compelling Masterpiece to specific speech (which is a 1st amendment violation). Previously Masterpiece lost to the Commission but SCOTUS held that the Commission "failed to act in a manner neutral to religion" and thus "violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" and thus reversed the Commission's decision. Possibly less drone victim information from US drone attacks https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-revocation-reporting-requirement/ -- executive order 13862 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJhXUxPNDbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LejT92SG-IU -- Trump administration changes Obama administration rule on releasing information on who drones kill. Brian Becker and Kathy Kelly are shown speaking. On March 6, 2019 Pres. Trump issued executive order 13862 that will revoke Obama administration rules made in 2016: the Director of National Intelligence will no longer be required to release an > unclassified summary of the number of strikes undertaken by the United > States Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active > hostilities, as well as assessments of combatant and non combatant > deaths resulting from those strikes, among other information. The Pentagon is still obliged to report > civilian casualties caused as a result of United States military > operations during the preceding year (civilian casualty report). > Subsection 1057(d) requires that the civilian casualty report be > submitted in unclassified form, but recognizes that the report may > include a classified annex. in compliance with the NDAA of 2018 (National Defense Authorization Act). There's also an anonymous claim from the White House Security Council which says this executive order is to 'minimize civilian deaths' (it's not clear how less reporting will result in fewer deaths) and to reduce "superfluous reporting". It's not clear how effective the (now revoked) Obama administration executive order 13732 was: drone deaths were underreported and people killed were called "enemies killed in action" even if they were not the intended target and not fighting the US. So we were reliant on estimated deaths and now we have less information with which to determine future estimates. -J -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2019-03 Ohio Sonic walkout (Lancaster).jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 56687 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2019-03 Ohio Sonic walkout (Circleville).jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 67360 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Mar 9 00:01:44 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 18:01:44 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #413 notes Message-ID: <380fc25d-137e-bfac-6dfe-41eb2397fd3f@forestfield.org> News from Neptune #413 An "Isolationist" edition. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAnhb6wJbwE A list of links to items featured on the show. James North and Philip Weiss on "The anti-Semitism of ‘kike’ and social exclusion has morphed into hazy ‘tropes’ about Israel" https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/semitism-exclusion-morphed/ Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgctLYF8bL4 -- What keeps the Democrats busy: Trump's impeachment and "anti-hate" draft resolution. Related: Nadine Strossen's "HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship" ISBN: 9780190859121 George Orwell: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40811-if-liberty-means-anything-at-all-it-means-the-right Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" ISBN: 0679446958 Norman Finkelstein & Ruth Bettina Birn's "A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth" ISBN: 978-0805058727 Norman Finkelstein's "The Holocaust Industry" ISBN: 1-85984-488-X Book: https://archive.org/details/HolocaustIndustry Book: https://archive.org/details/Finkelstein_Norman_G_-_Holocaust_Industry_The Pepe Escobar on "Pepe Escobar: Kashmir, Korea, Venezuela, Iran - Hot, cold, hybrid war" https://www.sott.net/article/408372-Pepe-Escobar-Kashmir-Korea-Venezuela-Iran-Hot-cold-hybrid-war J.B. Nicholson on "Is Tulsi Gabbard really anti-war? No, she’s pro-drone and for “surgical strikes”." https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ Unauthorized Disclosure podcast RSS feed: https://unauthorizeddisclosure.libsyn.com/rss Chelsea Manning jailed again over WikiLeaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnIH2TD8Frk -- RT https://on.rt.com/9pt4 -- RT https://apnews.com/569631f2b11c400cac05a29e0853624b -- AP News https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/chelsea-manning-wikileaks-jail.html -- New York Times https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/03/08/chelsea-manning-jailed-after-refusing-to-testify-in-wikileaks-case/ -- Breitbart Rania Khalek on how CNN smeared her, US censorship via private entities funded by US government https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YlOGOdweaU -- Jimmy Dore interview (including strong critique of the so-called "Left") https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/unauthorizeddisclosure/ResponseToCNNHitPieceOnRania-SpecialEpisode.mp3 https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/unauthorizeddisclosure/CNNInterviewMaffickInTheNow.mp3 Dan Cohen interviews from "Unauthorized Disclosure" Part 1 of 2: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/unauthorizeddisclosure/E6S7.mp3 Part 2 of 2: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/unauthorizeddisclosure/S6E7_Part2.mp3 Max Blumenthal goes to upscale mall in Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trT51Ykqe8k The Grayzone Project https://thegrayzone.com/ Tucker Carlson Tonight show from Fox News https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlTLHnxSVuIzrARlmz9oCfQEF08UV-v-E Recent references to "MSDNC" on counterpunch.org https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/11/roaming-charges-que-syria-syria/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/08/the-relevance-of-debs-in-the-new-gilded-age/ Merkel refuses to send Navy ships to Russia’s shores, rebuffs US pressure https://on.rt.com/9pra Rob Urie on "Gender, Class and Capitalism" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/08/gender-class-and-capitalism/ Peace-discuss mailing list information, subscription form https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss Tyler Durden on "Default Or Exit: A Battle Between Italy And The EU Is Inevitable" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-07/default-or-exit-battle-between-italy-and-eu-inevitable Julie Wurth articles in the News-Gazette.com http://www.news-gazette.com/author/julie-wurth Some Julie Wurth articles referencing Larry Gies http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2019-03-08/find-your-why-gies-returns-signing-day-ui-college-bears-his-name.html http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2019-03-04/ui-commencement-speaker-larry-gies.html -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 9 16:23:08 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 16:23:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN yesterday 3/9/19 Message-ID: Carl/David Good program, covering several important issues. Statements related to racism and hate are right on point, how does the USG ourlaw our hate, do they implement love into our hearts and minds to replace the hate? As long as we have a capitalist system, I doubt it. You know my views on Tulsi Gabbard, they comply with JB Nicholson. I see Tulsi as not really anti-war. I'm glad she is speaking out against war, but her language is cloaked in subliminal messages, that supports everything but sending US troops to war. I suspect given she was a Bernie supporter previously, now herself running for President, will be Bernie's running mate. This won't push Bernie closer to being anti-war, it will simply sheep herd more on the left into the Democratic Party, who as we well know will never stop our war policies any more than the Republican Party. Foreign Policy continues unabated no matter who is in the White House, given our system of capitalism, or “for profit. “ US hypocrisy is beyond contempt given the suppression of information and imprisonment and harrassment of whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange. American Empire decline? A mere “germ of truth"? I’d say it’s a little more than just a germ of truth. Good comments related to Italy. Less than a week ago, I posted a comment on FB asking how long before the US decides Italy requires intervention, due to their support for the Yellow Vests, desire to leave the EU due to austerity programs being imposed, and now their support for the BRI/Silk Road. If we don’t focus on “class’’ eradicating our system of capitalism, there isn’t much hope of truly addressing the issues of gender or race. Please cc me on your list of articles on the Peace Discuss List? PS Usually those who buy company’s buy company’s in trouble, getting them cheap. Nothing heroic about that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Mar 9 20:20:20 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 14:20:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shlomo Sand: Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists Message-ID: https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4256-semites-anti-semites-zionists-and-anti-zionists?fbclid=IwAR2JYMfoho_O6sXTYSukZ09Z1IfU-Pp2HEcMKskyqeCCHEufrK43q4fdbTg Shlomo Sand 04 March 2019 Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists Emmanuel Macron recently described anti-Zionism as a new form of antisemitism, setting in motion a process to criminalize anti-Zionism. In this article, Shlomo Sand discusses changing natures of Judeophobia, Zionism, and of Jewish indentity [image: Macron-] Although I live in Israel, the ‘state of the Jewish people’, I have closely followed recent debate in France on anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. If any anti-Jewish expression in the world always worries me, I feel a certain disgust at the flood of hypocrisy and manipulation orchestrated by those who now want to criminalize anyone who criticizes Zionism. Let’s start with the problem of definition. For a long time now, I have felt uneasy not only about the recently popular formula ‘Judeo-Christian civilization’, but also about the conventional use of the term ‘anti-Semitism’. We all know that the word was coined in the second half of the nineteenth century by Wilhelm Marr, a German national-populist who hated Jews. In the spirit of that time, users of the term basically assumed the existence of a hierarchy of races in which the European white man was at the top, while the Semitic race occupied a lower rank. One of the founders of this ‘science of race’ was the Frenchman Arthur Gobineau. Nowadays, history is a little more serious. It recognizes Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic, widespread in the Near East), but not any Semitic race. Given that European Jews did not speak Hebrew in everyday life, this being used only for prayer (just as Christians used Latin), it is hard to consider them as Semites. Should we remind ourselves that modern hatred towards Jews is above all a legacy of the Christian churches? As early as the fourth century, Christianity refused to consider Judaism a legitimate competing religion and created the famous myth of exile: Jews had been exiled from Palestine for participating in the murder of God’s son, and have to be humiliated to demonstrate their inferiority. It should be noted, however, that there never was any such exile of Jews from Palestine, and not even the least historical work on the subject can be found. Personally, I belong to the traditional school of thought that refuses to see Jews as a race-people alien to Europe. As far back as the nineteenth century, Ernest Renan, after having freed himself from his racism, maintained that: ‘The Jew of Gallic times... was, most often, simply a Gaul professing the Israelite religion.’ Historian Marc Bloch pointed out that Jews were ‘a group of believers recruited in the past from across the Mediterranean, Turkic-Khazar and Slavic world’. Raymond Aron added: ‘So-called Jews are not biologically, for the most part, descendants of Semitic tribes.’ Judeophobia, however, has always persisted in seeing Jews not as followers of a significant religious belief, but as a foreign nation. The slow decline of Christianity as a hegemonic religion in Europe was unfortunately not accompanied by a decline in the strong Judeophobic tradition. ‘Secular’ writers transformed ancestral hatred and fear into modern ‘rational’ ideologies. Prejudices about Jews and Judaism can be found not only in Shakespeare or Voltaire, but also in Hegel and Marx. The Gordian knot between Jews, Judaism and money seemed obvious to the learned elite. The fact that the vast majority of the millions of Jews in Eastern Europe suffered from hunger and lived in poverty had absolutely no effect on Charles Dickens, Feodor Dostoevsky, or a large portion of the European left. In modern France, Judeophobia flourished not only with Alphonse Toussenel, Maurice Barrès and Édouard Drumont, but also with Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon – even, for a time, Jean Jaurès and Georges Sorel. Judeophobia accompanied the advance of democracy as a regular component of the prejudices of the European masses. The Dreyfus affair was its ‘emblematic’ event, until far surpassed by the extermination of Jews during the Second World War. It was between these two historical events that Zionism was born, as an idea and a movement. It should be recalled, however, that until the Second World War the vast majority of Jews and their secular descendants were anti-Zionist. It was not only Orthodox Judaism, strong and organized, that was outraged at the idea of precipitating redemption by emigrating to the Holy Land; the more modern religious currents, both Reform and Conservative, were also strongly opposed to Zionism. The Bund, a secular party supported by the majority of Yiddish-speaking socialists in the tsarist empire and then in independent Poland, saw Zionists as natural allies of Judeophobes. Nor did Communists of Jewish origin miss an opportunity to condemn Zionism as an accomplice to British colonialism. After the extermination of European Jews, the survivors who had failed to find safe haven in North America or the USSR softened their hostile attitude to Zionism, while most countries of both the Western and Communist worlds recognized the state of Israel. The fact that the creation of this state took place in 1948 at the expense of the indigenous Arab population did not unduly bother them. The wave of decolonization was still in its infancy, and not a factor to be taken into account. Israel was then perceived as a refuge for Jews without shelter or home. Despite Zionism having failed to save the Jews of Europe, despite the survivors preferring to emigrate to America, and despite Zionism being a colonial enterprise in the full sense of the term, a significant fact remains: the Zionist diagnosis of the danger to the lives of Jews in twentieth-century European civilization (in no way Judeo-Christian!) had proved correct. Theodore Herzl, pioneer of the Zionist idea, had understood the Judeophobes of his time better than the liberals and Marxists. This certainly does not justify the Zionist definition according to which Jews form a racial people. No more does it justify the Zionists’ view that the Holy Land is a national home to which they have historical rights. The Zionists, however, have created a political fait accompli, and any attempt to erase it would result in further tragedy for the two resulting peoples: the Israelis and the Palestinians. At the same time, we should remember that even if not all Zionists demand continued domination over the territories conquered in 1967, and many of them feel uncomfortable with the apartheid regime that Israel has been exercising there for 52 years, all those who see themselves as Zionists persist in seeing Israel, at least within its 1967 borders, as the state of the Jews of the whole world, rather than a republic for all Israelis, a quarter of whom are not classed as Jewish, 21 per cent being Arabs. If a democracy is fundamentally a state aspiring to the well-being of all its citizens, all those whom it taxes and all children born there, then Israel, despite its political pluralism, is rather a true ethnocracy, as Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European states were before the Second World War. The attempt by President Emmanuel Macron and his party today to criminalize anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism is a cynical and manipulative manoeuvre. If anti-Zionism were to become a criminal offence, perhaps Macron should retroactively indict the Bundist Marek Edelman, who was one of the leaders of the Warsaw ghetto and totally anti-Zionist. He could also invite to the trial those anti-Zionist Communists in France who, rather than emigrating to Palestine, chose armed resistance to Nazism, which led them to figure on the notorious ‘*affiche rouge*’.[1] If he wants to be consistent in his retroactive condemnation of all critics of Zionism, President Macron will have to include my teacher Madeleine Rebérioux, who chaired the Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, my other teacher and friend, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, and also, of course, Eric Hobsbawm, Edouard Saïd, and many other distinguished figures, who have since passed away but whose writings are still authoritative. If President Macron confines himself to a law against living anti-Zionists, his proposed law should at least apply to those Orthodox Jews in Paris and New York who reject Zionism, and to Naomi Klein, Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky and many other humanist universalists in France and Europe, who identify as Jews while at the same time proclaiming themselves anti-Zionists. There are, of course, idiots who are both anti-Zionist and Judeophobic, just as there are many stupid pro-Zionists (also Judeophobic) who wish Jews would leave France and emigrate to Israel. Should they also be included in this wave of prosecution? Be careful, Monsieur President, not to let yourself be drawn into this vicious circle, just when your popularity is falling! To conclude, I don’t think there is a rise in anti-Judaism in France. This has always existed, and I fear will persist well into the future. However, I have no doubt that one of the factors keeping it going, particularly in certain neighbourhoods where people with an immigrant background live, is precisely Israel’s policy against the Palestinians: both those living as second-class citizens within the ‘Jewish state’, and those who, for 52 years, have suffered brutal military occupation and colonization. I have regularly protested against this tragic situation. I strongly support recognition of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and I belief in a ‘de-Zionization’ of the state of Israel. Should I worry about being taken to court on my next visit to France? *Originally published by Médiapart, 25 February 2019. Translated by David Fernbach* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 10 02:16:54 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 20:16:54 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN yesterday 3/9/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33AEE0E2-37F7-4894-A0DA-8ED33D608136@gmail.com> The ‘germ of truth' in the story of US imperial decline is that the decline is relative, not absolute. US economic and military muscle hasn’t atrophied, but others’ has increased. And not just that of the "peer competitors" so feared by Brzezinski - Russia and China. Populism in Europe, e.g., makes the greatest dependency of the US increasingly unreliable. > On Mar 9, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl/David > > Good program, covering several important issues. > > Statements related to racism and hate are right on point, how does the USG ourlaw our hate, do they implement love into our hearts and minds to replace the hate? As long as we have a capitalist system, I doubt it. > > You know my views on Tulsi Gabbard, they comply with JB Nicholson. > > > I see Tulsi as not really anti-war. I'm glad she is speaking out against > war, but her language is cloaked in subliminal messages, that supports everything but sending US troops to war. I suspect given she was a Bernie supporter previously, now herself running for President, will be Bernie's running mate. This won't push Bernie > closer to being anti-war, it will simply sheep herd more on the left into the Democratic Party, who as we well know will never stop our war policies any more than the Republican Party. Foreign Policy continues unabated no matter who is in the White House, > given our system of capitalism, or “for profit. > “ > > > US hypocrisy is beyond contempt given the suppression of information and > imprisonment and harrassment of whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange. > > > > American Empire decline? A mere “germ of truth"? I > ’d > say it’s a little more than just a germ of truth. > > > > Good comments related to Italy. Less than a week ago, I posted a comment on FB asking how long before the US decides Italy requires intervention, > due to their support for the Yellow Vests, desire to leave the EU due to austerity programs being imposed, and now their support for the BRI/Silk Road. > > > > If we don’t focus on “class’’ eradicating our system of capitalism, there isn’t much hope of truly addressing the issues of gender or > race. > > > > Please cc me on your list of articles on the Peace Discuss List? > > > > PS Usually those who buy company’s buy company’s in trouble, getting them cheap. Nothing heroic about that. > > From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Mar 10 03:48:30 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 03:48:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shlomo Sand: Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5A6D505C-9AB7-4F0B-BA30-45E993ACF9B1@illinois.edu> Thanks for the informative link. As one interested in the Macron-French phenomenon, I especially liked Sand's final paragraph (because I think it right and often ignored): To conclude, I don’t think there is a rise in anti-Judaism in France. This has always existed, and I fear will persist well into the future. However, I have no doubt that one of the factors keeping it going, particularly in certain neighbourhoods where people with an immigrant background live, is precisely Israel’s policy against the Palestinians: both those living as second-class citizens within the ‘Jewish state’, and those who, for 52 years, have suffered brutal military occupation and colonization. My emphasis. On Mar 9, 2019, at 2:20 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4256-semites-anti-semites-zionists-and-anti-zionists?fbclid=IwAR2JYMfoho_O6sXTYSukZ09Z1IfU-Pp2HEcMKskyqeCCHEufrK43q4fdbTg Shlomo Sand 04 March 2019 Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists Emmanuel Macron recently described anti-Zionism as a new form of antisemitism, setting in motion a process to criminalize anti-Zionism. In this article, Shlomo Sand discusses changing natures of Judeophobia, Zionism, and of Jewish indentity [Macron-] Although I live in Israel, the ‘state of the Jewish people’, I have closely followed recent debate in France on anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. If any anti-Jewish expression in the world always worries me, I feel a certain disgust at the flood of hypocrisy and manipulation orchestrated by those who now want to criminalize anyone who criticizes Zionism. Let’s start with the problem of definition. For a long time now, I have felt uneasy not only about the recently popular formula ‘Judeo-Christian civilization’, but also about the conventional use of the term ‘anti-Semitism’. We all know that the word was coined in the second half of the nineteenth century by Wilhelm Marr, a German national-populist who hated Jews. In the spirit of that time, users of the term basically assumed the existence of a hierarchy of races in which the European white man was at the top, while the Semitic race occupied a lower rank. One of the founders of this ‘science of race’ was the Frenchman Arthur Gobineau. Nowadays, history is a little more serious. It recognizes Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic, widespread in the Near East), but not any Semitic race. Given that European Jews did not speak Hebrew in everyday life, this being used only for prayer (just as Christians used Latin), it is hard to consider them as Semites. Should we remind ourselves that modern hatred towards Jews is above all a legacy of the Christian churches? As early as the fourth century, Christianity refused to consider Judaism a legitimate competing religion and created the famous myth of exile: Jews had been exiled from Palestine for participating in the murder of God’s son, and have to be humiliated to demonstrate their inferiority. It should be noted, however, that there never was any such exile of Jews from Palestine, and not even the least historical work on the subject can be found. Personally, I belong to the traditional school of thought that refuses to see Jews as a race-people alien to Europe. As far back as the nineteenth century, Ernest Renan, after having freed himself from his racism, maintained that: ‘The Jew of Gallic times... was, most often, simply a Gaul professing the Israelite religion.’ Historian Marc Bloch pointed out that Jews were ‘a group of believers recruited in the past from across the Mediterranean, Turkic-Khazar and Slavic world’. Raymond Aron added: ‘So-called Jews are not biologically, for the most part, descendants of Semitic tribes.’ Judeophobia, however, has always persisted in seeing Jews not as followers of a significant religious belief, but as a foreign nation. The slow decline of Christianity as a hegemonic religion in Europe was unfortunately not accompanied by a decline in the strong Judeophobic tradition. ‘Secular’ writers transformed ancestral hatred and fear into modern ‘rational’ ideologies. Prejudices about Jews and Judaism can be found not only in Shakespeare or Voltaire, but also in Hegel and Marx. The Gordian knot between Jews, Judaism and money seemed obvious to the learned elite. The fact that the vast majority of the millions of Jews in Eastern Europe suffered from hunger and lived in poverty had absolutely no effect on Charles Dickens, Feodor Dostoevsky, or a large portion of the European left. In modern France, Judeophobia flourished not only with Alphonse Toussenel, Maurice Barrès and Édouard Drumont, but also with Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon – even, for a time, Jean Jaurès and Georges Sorel. Judeophobia accompanied the advance of democracy as a regular component of the prejudices of the European masses. The Dreyfus affair was its ‘emblematic’ event, until far surpassed by the extermination of Jews during the Second World War. It was between these two historical events that Zionism was born, as an idea and a movement. It should be recalled, however, that until the Second World War the vast majority of Jews and their secular descendants were anti-Zionist. It was not only Orthodox Judaism, strong and organized, that was outraged at the idea of precipitating redemption by emigrating to the Holy Land; the more modern religious currents, both Reform and Conservative, were also strongly opposed to Zionism. The Bund, a secular party supported by the majority of Yiddish-speaking socialists in the tsarist empire and then in independent Poland, saw Zionists as natural allies of Judeophobes. Nor did Communists of Jewish origin miss an opportunity to condemn Zionism as an accomplice to British colonialism. After the extermination of European Jews, the survivors who had failed to find safe haven in North America or the USSR softened their hostile attitude to Zionism, while most countries of both the Western and Communist worlds recognized the state of Israel. The fact that the creation of this state took place in 1948 at the expense of the indigenous Arab population did not unduly bother them. The wave of decolonization was still in its infancy, and not a factor to be taken into account. Israel was then perceived as a refuge for Jews without shelter or home. Despite Zionism having failed to save the Jews of Europe, despite the survivors preferring to emigrate to America, and despite Zionism being a colonial enterprise in the full sense of the term, a significant fact remains: the Zionist diagnosis of the danger to the lives of Jews in twentieth-century European civilization (in no way Judeo-Christian!) had proved correct. Theodore Herzl, pioneer of the Zionist idea, had understood the Judeophobes of his time better than the liberals and Marxists. This certainly does not justify the Zionist definition according to which Jews form a racial people. No more does it justify the Zionists’ view that the Holy Land is a national home to which they have historical rights. The Zionists, however, have created a political fait accompli, and any attempt to erase it would result in further tragedy for the two resulting peoples: the Israelis and the Palestinians. At the same time, we should remember that even if not all Zionists demand continued domination over the territories conquered in 1967, and many of them feel uncomfortable with the apartheid regime that Israel has been exercising there for 52 years, all those who see themselves as Zionists persist in seeing Israel, at least within its 1967 borders, as the state of the Jews of the whole world, rather than a republic for all Israelis, a quarter of whom are not classed as Jewish, 21 per cent being Arabs. If a democracy is fundamentally a state aspiring to the well-being of all its citizens, all those whom it taxes and all children born there, then Israel, despite its political pluralism, is rather a true ethnocracy, as Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European states were before the Second World War. The attempt by President Emmanuel Macron and his party today to criminalize anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism is a cynical and manipulative manoeuvre. If anti-Zionism were to become a criminal offence, perhaps Macron should retroactively indict the Bundist Marek Edelman, who was one of the leaders of the Warsaw ghetto and totally anti-Zionist. He could also invite to the trial those anti-Zionist Communists in France who, rather than emigrating to Palestine, chose armed resistance to Nazism, which led them to figure on the notorious ‘affiche rouge’.[1] If he wants to be consistent in his retroactive condemnation of all critics of Zionism, President Macron will have to include my teacher Madeleine Rebérioux, who chaired the Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, my other teacher and friend, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, and also, of course, Eric Hobsbawm, Edouard Saïd, and many other distinguished figures, who have since passed away but whose writings are still authoritative. If President Macron confines himself to a law against living anti-Zionists, his proposed law should at least apply to those Orthodox Jews in Paris and New York who reject Zionism, and to Naomi Klein, Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky and many other humanist universalists in France and Europe, who identify as Jews while at the same time proclaiming themselves anti-Zionists. There are, of course, idiots who are both anti-Zionist and Judeophobic, just as there are many stupid pro-Zionists (also Judeophobic) who wish Jews would leave France and emigrate to Israel. Should they also be included in this wave of prosecution? Be careful, Monsieur President, not to let yourself be drawn into this vicious circle, just when your popularity is falling! To conclude, I don’t think there is a rise in anti-Judaism in France. This has always existed, and I fear will persist well into the future. However, I have no doubt that one of the factors keeping it going, particularly in certain neighbourhoods where people with an immigrant background live, is precisely Israel’s policy against the Palestinians: both those living as second-class citizens within the ‘Jewish state’, and those who, for 52 years, have suffered brutal military occupation and colonization. I have regularly protested against this tragic situation. I strongly support recognition of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and I belief in a ‘de-Zionization’ of the state of Israel. Should I worry about being taken to court on my next visit to France? Originally published by Médiapart, 25 February 2019. Translated by David Fernbach _______________________________________________ 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 mkb3 at icloud.com Mon Mar 11 03:51:56 2019 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 22:51:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" Message-ID: <8525BF92-0F10-4DA4-A59E-A9B7B24602F2@icloud.com> I wrote this some time ago, but evidently didn’t send it off… My reading of those in the Jewish community who are ardent Zionists indeed have a dual allegiance irrespective of American interests. We have a few here at CLV. David, what are your impressions with members of the Temple community? How about those who have emigrated to Israel from the U.S.? > On Mar 4, 2019, at 10:41 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > Only so long as Israel remains useful to American control of the region, which it most certainly will in the foreseeable future. > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brussel, Morton K > wrote: > > >> On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green > wrote: >> >> Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their support for American Empire. > > ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? >> >> DG >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> By Philip Giraldi: >> >> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm >> >> —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 09:57:14 2019 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:57:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Emerging and unstoppable...Jews and Communism linked References: <2098411653.3350084.1552298234290.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2098411653.3350084.1552298234290@mail.yahoo.com> McCarthyism era was all about suppressing this...The wide-open internet is the nemesis of the Jews and they can't stop it.Just a matter of time.Surging anti Semitism is confirmation. https://russia-insider.com/en/history/1983-book-jewish-historians-celebrates-jewish-role-mass-murder-russians-under-bolshevism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Mon Mar 11 10:34:32 2019 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 03:34:32 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" In-Reply-To: <8525BF92-0F10-4DA4-A59E-A9B7B24602F2@icloud.com> References: <8525BF92-0F10-4DA4-A59E-A9B7B24602F2@icloud.com> Message-ID: All of you should watch this film - it is true and very chilling - I see that it has never shown in Champaign, only near Chicago - you should arrange a showing! https://whowillwriteourhistory.com/see-the-film/ On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 8:52 PM Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I wrote this some time ago, but evidently didn’t send it off… > > My reading of those in the Jewish community who are ardent Zionists indeed > have a dual allegiance irrespective of American interests. We have a few > here at CLV. David, what are your impressions with members of the Temple > community? How about those who have emigrated to Israel from the U.S.? > > On Mar 4, 2019, at 10:41 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Only so long as Israel remains useful to American control of the region, > which it most certainly will in the foreseeable future. > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brussel, Morton K > wrote: > >> >> >> On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green wrote: >> >> Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and >> despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of >> "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their >> support for American Empire. >> >> >> ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? >> >> >> DG >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> By Philip Giraldi: >>> >>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm >>> >>> —mkb >>> >> _______________________________________________ > 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 stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 10:51:58 2019 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Emerging and unstoppable...Jews and Communism linked In-Reply-To: <2098411653.3350084.1552298234290@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2098411653.3350084.1552298234290.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2098411653.3350084.1552298234290@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1413777989.3384488.1552301518426@mail.yahoo.com> These thoughts are not antiSemitic, but rather just embracing the truth.The denials, obfuscations, and distractions created to suppress links between Jews and Communism will only exacerbate the correct collective punishment of Jews. Their disingenuous attempt to portray themselves as victims is being exposed as a sham. They, collectively, have extorted and accepted nearly $100 billion from this scam.As per the article, over 150 Hollywood films have been made about the fake Holocaust, while almost none about far more real and horrific genocides, as mentioned above.There are over 60 fake Holocaust museums....that will one day become sordid reminders of Jewish lies.Martin Luther's book 'The Jews and their Lies' was never more pertinent.Amazon can't ban this book...This is an educational post...reality.The Jews and Their Lies | | | | The Jews and Their Lies The Jews and Their Lies by Luther, Martin. Published by Liberty Bell Publications,2004, Binding: Paperback | | | On Monday, March 11, 2019, 5:57:17 AM EDT, Stephen Francis wrote: McCarthyism era was all about suppressing this...The wide-open internet is the nemesis of the Jews and they can't stop it.Just a matter of time.Surging anti Semitism is confirmation. https://russia-insider.com/en/history/1983-book-jewish-historians-celebrates-jewish-role-mass-murder-russians-under-bolshevism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Mar 11 13:52:09 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:52:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 130 House Democrats not co-sponsoring the Single-Payer Medicare for and the amount of campaign donations they have received from the Pharma and corporate health insurance industry, Message-ID: <003c01d4d811$a03b46f0$e0b1d4d0$@comcast.net> Below are the names of all 130 House Democrats not co-sponsoring the Single-Payer Medicare for All U.S. House Bill H.R. 1384, ( the new U.S. House Bill number that has replaced HR 676 ) and the amount of campaign donations they have received from the Pharma and corporate health insurance industry, in alphabetical order. Of those 130 House Democrats not yet co-sponsoring the Medicare for All Act of 2019, 48 of them were elected in the "blue wave" of 2018. Additionally, not one member of House Democrats' leadership has co-sponsored the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina), and House Democratic Caucus chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) have all received generous donations from pharma and insurance (Hoyer alone received more than $2.5 million in career donations) throughout their Congressional careers. ILLINOIS Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Illinois) $384,569 since 2011, Rep. Sean Casten (D-Illinois) $46,186 since 2017, Rep. Bill Foster (D-Illinois) $606,819 since Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois) $222,770 since 2011. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois) $67,150 since 2003, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Illinois) $128,367 since 2007, Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Illinois) $514,617 since 2011 Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Illinois) $39,099 since 2017 U.S. HOUSE LEADERSHIP House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) $1,029,376 since 1989, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) $2,598,432 since 1989 House Democratic Caucus chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) $129,742 since 2011 House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina) $1,497,893 since 1991 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 13:59:48 2019 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Netanyahu knows the real nature of Israeli citzens References: <1421083039.3468319.1552312788184.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1421083039.3468319.1552312788184@mail.yahoo.com> He wouldn't make this statement: "  Israel is a state 'only of the Jewish people' It will get him elected...just as in the last election...he said there would never be a Palestinian state...It's the Jewish people ...stupid....he's no fool. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-state-jewish-people-190311092510577.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Mar 11 14:13:41 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:13:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shlomo Sand: Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists References: <2124238708.2557168.1552313621373.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2124238708.2557168.1552313621373@mail.yahoo.com> I maintain that all the recent superficial and ignorant talk by politicians (and others) who epitomize that ilk should be required to DEFINE what is meant by the popularly resurrected term "anti-semitism".  Mr. Shlomo explores the variations of meaning and presents a proper definition and description of the many misunderstandings of the meanings of Semitism, Judeophobe and Zionism. Midge -----Original Message----- From: David Green via Peace-discuss To: Peace-discuss Sent: Sat, Mar 9, 2019 2:20 pm Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shlomo Sand: Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4256-semites-anti-semites-zionists-and-anti-zionists?fbclid=IwAR2JYMfoho_O6sXTYSukZ09Z1IfU-Pp2HEcMKskyqeCCHEufrK43q4fdbTg Shlomo Sand04 March 2019 Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists Emmanuel Macron recently described anti-Zionism as a new form of antisemitism, setting in motion a process to criminalize anti-Zionism. In this article, Shlomo Sand discusses changing natures of Judeophobia, Zionism, and of Jewish indentity Although I live in Israel, the ‘state of the Jewish people’, I have closely followed recent debate in France on anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. If any anti-Jewish expression in the world always worries me, I feel a certain disgust at the flood of hypocrisy and manipulation orchestrated by those who now want to criminalize anyone who criticizes Zionism. Let’s start with the problem of definition. For a long time now, I have felt uneasy not only about the recently popular formula ‘Judeo-Christian civilization’, but also about the conventional use of the term ‘anti-Semitism’. We all know that the word was coined in the second half of the nineteenth century by Wilhelm Marr, a German national-populist who hated Jews. In the spirit of that time, users of the term basically assumed the existence of a hierarchy of races in which the European white man was at the top, while the Semitic race occupied a lower rank. One of the founders of this ‘science of race’ was the Frenchman Arthur Gobineau. Nowadays, history is a little more serious. It recognizes Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic, widespread in the Near East), but not any Semitic race. Given that European Jews did not speak Hebrew in everyday life, this being used only for prayer (just as Christians used Latin), it is hard to consider them as Semites. Should we remind ourselves that modern hatred towards Jews is above all a legacy of the Christian churches? As early as the fourth century, Christianity refused to consider Judaism a legitimate competing religion and created the famous myth of exile: Jews had been exiled from Palestine for participating in the murder of God’s son, and have to be humiliated to demonstrate their inferiority. It should be noted, however, that there never was any such exile of Jews from Palestine, and not even the least historical work on the subject can be found. Personally, I belong to the traditional school of thought that refuses to see Jews as a race-people alien to Europe. As far back as the nineteenth century, Ernest Renan, after having freed himself from his racism, maintained that: ‘The Jew of Gallic times... was, most often, simply a Gaul professing the Israelite religion.’ Historian Marc Bloch pointed out that Jews were ‘a group of believers recruited in the past from across the Mediterranean, Turkic-Khazar and Slavic world’. Raymond Aron added: ‘So-called Jews are not biologically, for the most part, descendants of Semitic tribes.’ Judeophobia, however, has always persisted in seeing Jews not as followers of a significant religious belief, but as a foreign nation. The slow decline of Christianity as a hegemonic religion in Europe was unfortunately not accompanied by a decline in the strong Judeophobic tradition. ‘Secular’ writers transformed ancestral hatred and fear into modern ‘rational’ ideologies. Prejudices about Jews and Judaism can be found not only in Shakespeare or Voltaire, but also in Hegel and Marx. The Gordian knot between Jews, Judaism and money seemed obvious to the learned elite. The fact that the vast majority of the millions of Jews in Eastern Europe suffered from hunger and lived in poverty had absolutely no effect on Charles Dickens, Feodor Dostoevsky, or a large portion of the European left. In modern France, Judeophobia flourished not only with Alphonse Toussenel, Maurice Barrès and Édouard Drumont, but also with Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon – even, for a time, Jean Jaurès and Georges Sorel. Judeophobia accompanied the advance of democracy as a regular component of the prejudices of the European masses. The Dreyfus affair was its ‘emblematic’ event, until far surpassed by the extermination of Jews during the Second World War. It was between these two historical events that Zionism was born, as an idea and a movement. It should be recalled, however, that until the Second World War the vast majority of Jews and their secular descendants were anti-Zionist. It was not only Orthodox Judaism, strong and organized, that was outraged at the idea of precipitating redemption by emigrating to the Holy Land; the more modern religious currents, both Reform and Conservative, were also strongly opposed to Zionism. The Bund, a secular party supported by the majority of Yiddish-speaking socialists in the tsarist empire and then in independent Poland, saw Zionists as natural allies of Judeophobes. Nor did Communists of Jewish origin miss an opportunity to condemn Zionism as an accomplice to British colonialism. After the extermination of European Jews, the survivors who had failed to find safe haven in North America or the USSR softened their hostile attitude to Zionism, while most countries of both the Western and Communist worlds recognized the state of Israel. The fact that the creation of this state took place in 1948 at the expense of the indigenous Arab population did not unduly bother them. The wave of decolonization was still in its infancy, and not a factor to be taken into account. Israel was then perceived as a refuge for Jews without shelter or home. Despite Zionism having failed to save the Jews of Europe, despite the survivors preferring to emigrate to America, and despite Zionism being a colonial enterprise in the full sense of the term, a significant fact remains: the Zionist diagnosis of the danger to the lives of Jews in twentieth-century European civilization (in no way Judeo-Christian!) had proved correct. Theodore Herzl, pioneer of the Zionist idea, had understood the Judeophobes of his time better than the liberals and Marxists. This certainly does not justify the Zionist definition according to which Jews form a racial people. No more does it justify the Zionists’ view that the Holy Land is a national home to which they have historical rights. The Zionists, however, have created a political fait accompli, and any attempt to erase it would result in further tragedy for the two resulting peoples: the Israelis and the Palestinians. At the same time, we should remember that even if not all Zionists demand continued domination over the territories conquered in 1967, and many of them feel uncomfortable with the apartheid regime that Israel has been exercising there for 52 years, all those who see themselves as Zionists persist in seeing Israel, at least within its 1967 borders, as the state of the Jews of the whole world, rather than a republic for all Israelis, a quarter of whom are not classed as Jewish, 21 per cent being Arabs. If a democracy is fundamentally a state aspiring to the well-being of all its citizens, all those whom it taxes and all children born there, then Israel, despite its political pluralism, is rather a true ethnocracy, as Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European states were before the Second World War. The attempt by President Emmanuel Macron and his party today to criminalize anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism is a cynical and manipulative manoeuvre. If anti-Zionism were to become a criminal offence, perhaps Macron should retroactively indict the Bundist Marek Edelman, who was one of the leaders of the Warsaw ghetto and totally anti-Zionist. He could also invite to the trial those anti-Zionist Communists in France who, rather than emigrating to Palestine, chose armed resistance to Nazism, which led them to figure on the notorious ‘affiche rouge’.[1] If he wants to be consistent in his retroactive condemnation of all critics of Zionism, President Macron will have to include my teacher Madeleine Rebérioux, who chaired the Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, my other teacher and friend, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, and also, of course, Eric Hobsbawm, Edouard Saïd, and many other distinguished figures, who have since passed away but whose writings are still authoritative. If President Macron confines himself to a law against living anti-Zionists, his proposed law should at least apply to those Orthodox Jews in Paris and New York who reject Zionism, and to Naomi Klein, Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky and many other humanist universalists in France and Europe, who identify as Jews while at the same time proclaiming themselves anti-Zionists. There are, of course, idiots who are both anti-Zionist and Judeophobic, just as there are many stupid pro-Zionists (also Judeophobic) who wish Jews would leave France and emigrate to Israel. Should they also be included in this wave of prosecution? Be careful, Monsieur President, not to let yourself be drawn into this vicious circle, just when your popularity is falling! To conclude, I don’t think there is a rise in anti-Judaism in France. This has always existed, and I fear will persist well into the future. However, I have no doubt that one of the factors keeping it going, particularly in certain neighbourhoods where people with an immigrant background live, is precisely Israel’s policy against the Palestinians: both those living as second-class citizens within the ‘Jewish state’, and those who, for 52 years, have suffered brutal military occupation and colonization. I have regularly protested against this tragic situation. I strongly support recognition of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and I belief in a ‘de-Zionization’ of the state of Israel. Should I worry about being taken to court on my next visit to France? Originally published by Médiapart, 25 February 2019. Translated by David Fernbach _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Mar 11 15:40:20 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:40:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" In-Reply-To: References: <8525BF92-0F10-4DA4-A59E-A9B7B24602F2@icloud.com> Message-ID: Also required reading: https://www.versobooks.com/books/1764-the-holocaust-industry Controversial indictment of those who exploit the tragedy of the Holocaust for their own gain In his iconoclastic and controversial study, Norman G. Finkelstein moves from an interrogation of the place the Holocaust has come to occupy in global culture to a disturbing examination of recent Holocaust compensation settlements. It was not until the Arab–Israeli War of 1967, when Israel’s evident strength brought it into line with US foreign policy, that memory of the Holocaust began to acquire the exceptional prominence it has today. Recalling Holocaust fraudsters such as Jerzy Kosiński and Binjamin Wilkomirski, as well as the demagogic constructions of writers like Daniel Goldhagen, Finkelstein contends that the main danger posed to the memory of Nazism’s victims comes from some of the very people who profess most passionately to defend it. Drawing on a wealth of untapped sources, he exposes the double shakedown of European countries and legitimate Jewish claimants, and concludes that the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket. For my own minor contributions, see: https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/19/the-holocaust-industry-comes-to-the-university-of-illinois/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2009/05/14/the-deportation-of-demjanjuk/ On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:34 AM Roger Helbig wrote: > All of you should watch this film - it is true and very chilling - I see > that it has never shown in Champaign, only near Chicago - you should > arrange a showing! > > https://whowillwriteourhistory.com/see-the-film/ > > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 8:52 PM Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> I wrote this some time ago, but evidently didn’t send it off… >> >> My reading of those in the Jewish community who are ardent Zionists >> indeed have a dual allegiance irrespective of American interests. We have a >> few here at CLV. David, what are your impressions with members of the >> Temple community? How about those who have emigrated to Israel from the >> U.S.? >> >> On Mar 4, 2019, at 10:41 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Only so long as Israel remains useful to American control of the region, >> which it most certainly will in the foreseeable future. >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brussel, Morton K >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green >>> wrote: >>> >>> Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and >>> despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of >>> "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their >>> support for American Empire. >>> >>> >>> ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? >>> >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> By Philip Giraldi: >>>> >>>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm >>>> >>>> —mkb >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Mar 11 15:47:48 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:47:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" In-Reply-To: <8525BF92-0F10-4DA4-A59E-A9B7B24602F2@icloud.com> References: <8525BF92-0F10-4DA4-A59E-A9B7B24602F2@icloud.com> Message-ID: As Chomsky has pointed out on numerous occasions, the American liberal intellectual class fell in love with Israel in 1967, when Israel clearly promoted American hegemony in the Middle East by smashing Arab nationalism. Until then, the "dual loyalty" charge could be yielded against them; after 1967, not so much. There are obviously those who have decided to emigrate, but that is neither here nor there regarding Congressional support and general support among the political class. Far from dual loyalty, loyalty to the U.S. and Israel are seen as one. As Chomsky and Finkelstein have also stated, when Israel is no longer central to American hegemony, its support will prove not to be rooted in a sincere support for Jewish nationalism; even if they love to sing Hatikvah. A good example of "dual loyalty" would be Rahm Emanuel, who twice volunteered to serve in the IDF. But of course he is loyal to the capitalist class over all. And the U.S. is where the global capitalist class has its headquarters. DG On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 10:51 PM Morton K. Brussel wrote: > I wrote this some time ago, but evidently didn’t send it off… > > My reading of those in the Jewish community who are ardent Zionists indeed > have a dual allegiance irrespective of American interests. We have a few > here at CLV. David, what are your impressions with members of the Temple > community? How about those who have emigrated to Israel from the U.S.? > > On Mar 4, 2019, at 10:41 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Only so long as Israel remains useful to American control of the region, > which it most certainly will in the foreseeable future. > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brussel, Morton K > wrote: > >> >> >> On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green wrote: >> >> Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and >> despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of >> "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their >> support for American Empire. >> >> >> ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? >> >> >> DG >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> By Philip Giraldi: >>> >>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm >>> >>> —mkb >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkb3 at icloud.com Mon Mar 11 16:11:36 2019 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:11:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hedges on Israel and aantisemitism Message-ID: <25FEF8D6-39F4-4F77-969C-0B2FE5CE1C87@icloud.com> https://www.truthdig.com/articles/israels-stranglehold-on-american-politics/ Obvious facts., and more, reiterated with effect, as Hedges can do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Mar 11 16:17:57 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:17:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" In-Reply-To: References: <8525BF92-0F10-4DA4-A59E-A9B7B24602F2@icloud.com> Message-ID: <00d101d4d825$fd66cf70$f8346e50$@comcast.net> Yes, I saw an interview with Norman Finkelstein on THE REAL NEWS NETWORK a few years ago about this topic. What makes Finkelstein’s discussion especially powerful is that both of his parents were Holocaust survivors, who had a run in with these con men. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 10:40 AM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" Also required reading: https://www.versobooks.com/books/1764-the-holocaust-industry Controversial indictment of those who exploit the tragedy of the Holocaust for their own gain In his iconoclastic and controversial study, Norman G. Finkelstein moves from an interrogation of the place the Holocaust has come to occupy in global culture to a disturbing examination of recent Holocaust compensation settlements. It was not until the Arab–Israeli War of 1967, when Israel’s evident strength brought it into line with US foreign policy, that memory of the Holocaust began to acquire the exceptional prominence it has today. Recalling Holocaust fraudsters such as Jerzy Kosiński and Binjamin Wilkomirski, as well as the demagogic constructions of writers like Daniel Goldhagen, Finkelstein contends that the main danger posed to the memory of Nazism’s victims comes from some of the very people who profess most passionately to defend it. Drawing on a wealth of untapped sources, he exposes the double shakedown of European countries and legitimate Jewish claimants, and concludes that the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket. For my own minor contributions, see: https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/19/the-holocaust-industry-comes-to-the-university-of-illinois/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2009/05/14/the-deportation-of-demjanjuk/ On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:34 AM Roger Helbig wrote: All of you should watch this film - it is true and very chilling - I see that it has never shown in Champaign, only near Chicago - you should arrange a showing! https://whowillwriteourhistory.com/see-the-film/ On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 8:52 PM Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss wrote: I wrote this some time ago, but evidently didn’t send it off… My reading of those in the Jewish community who are ardent Zionists indeed have a dual allegiance irrespective of American interests. We have a few here at CLV. David, what are your impressions with members of the Temple community? How about those who have emigrated to Israel from the U.S.? On Mar 4, 2019, at 10:41 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: Only so long as Israel remains useful to American control of the region, which it most certainly will in the foreseeable future. On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brussel, Morton K wrote: On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green wrote: Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their support for American Empire. ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? DG On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: By Philip Giraldi: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm —mkb _______________________________________________ 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 mkb3 at icloud.com Mon Mar 11 16:29:41 2019 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:29:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" In-Reply-To: References: <8525BF92-0F10-4DA4-A59E-A9B7B24602F2@icloud.com> Message-ID: <409D7E7D-80B6-4C8F-BD9F-800A4ACA0191@icloud.com> In my view, this begs the question: Are there not many Zionist Americans who have a dual loyalty to Israeli interests over and above American interests. I say yes. The arguments here seem irrelevent to this, Chomsky or Finkelstein and "Congressional support and general support among the political class" notwithstanding. > On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:47 AM, David Green wrote: > > As Chomsky has pointed out on numerous occasions, the American liberal intellectual class fell in love with Israel in 1967, when Israel clearly promoted American hegemony in the Middle East by smashing Arab nationalism. Until then, the "dual loyalty" charge could be yielded against them; after 1967, not so much. There are obviously those who have decided to emigrate, but that is neither here nor there regarding Congressional support and general support among the political class. Far from dual loyalty, loyalty to the U.S. and Israel are seen as one. As Chomsky and Finkelstein have also stated, when Israel is no longer central to American hegemony, its support will prove not to be rooted in a sincere support for Jewish nationalism; even if they love to sing Hatikvah. > > A good example of "dual loyalty" would be Rahm Emanuel, who twice volunteered to serve in the IDF. But of course he is loyal to the capitalist class over all. And the U.S. is where the global capitalist class has its headquarters. > > DG > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 10:51 PM Morton K. Brussel > wrote: > I wrote this some time ago, but evidently didn’t send it off… > > My reading of those in the Jewish community who are ardent Zionists indeed have a dual allegiance irrespective of American interests. We have a few here at CLV. David, what are your impressions with members of the Temple community? How about those who have emigrated to Israel from the U.S.? > >> On Mar 4, 2019, at 10:41 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Only so long as Israel remains useful to American control of the region, which it most certainly will in the foreseeable future. >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brussel, Morton K > wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green > wrote: >>> >>> Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their support for American Empire. >> >> ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> By Philip Giraldi: >>> >>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm >>> >>> —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Mar 11 18:25:31 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Painfully plausible Message-ID: If Liberals Won’t Enforce Borders, Fascists Will We need to make hard decisions now about what will truly benefit current and future Americans. DAVID FRUM The Atlantic APRIL 2019 ISSUE I. The Wave That’s Still Building Through much of the 20th century, the United States received comparatively few immigrants. In the 60 years from 1915 until 1975, nearly a human lifetime, the United States admitted fewer immigrants than arrived, legally and illegally, in the single decade of the 1990s. If you grew up in the 1950s, the 1960s, or even the 1970s, heavy immigration seemed mostly a chapter from the American past, narrated to the nostalgic strains of The Godfather or Fiddler on the Roof. The Ellis Island immigrant-inspection station—through which flowed the ancestors of so many of today’s Americans—closed in 1954. It reopened as a museum in 1990. Yet rather than fading into history, immigration has only been accelerating. From 1990 to 2015, 44 million people left the global South to find new homes in the global North. They came from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. They came to the United States above all, but to the nations of Europe too. The United Kingdom has received nearly as many immigrants, relative to its population, as the United States has. Germany and Sweden have received more. Some 45 million foreign-born people now make their home in the United States. About 11 million to 12 million live here illegally. As with climate change, separating annual fluctuations from long-term trends is important. Illegal immigration into the United States by Mexicans is now declining. Border crossings by Central Americans are steeply rising. Year by year, immigration numbers may shift up or down. But decade by decade, immigration is remaking nations on a world-altering scale. By 2027, the foreign-born proportion of the U.S. population is projected to equal its previous all-time peak, in 1890: 14.8 percent. Under present policy, that percentage will keep rising to new records thereafter. This massive new wave of immigration has brought many benefits to the United States. Of the 122 Americans who won a Nobel Prize from 2000 to 2018, 34 were immigrants. Four of the five Americans who won Nobels in 2016 were born outside the country. Of the 41 Fortune 500 companies created since 1985, eight had an immigrant founder. In many ways, the United States is a stronger, richer, and more dynamic country because of international migration. I am an immigrant myself. Born in Canada, I attended college in the United States, became a permanent resident, raised a family here, and was naturalized in 2007. Within a decade, the foreign-born percentage of the U.S. population will surpass its previous all-time peak — and then keep rising. But large-scale immigration also comes with considerable social and political costs, and those must be accounted for. In November 2018, Hillary Clinton delivered a warning to Europeans that mass immigration was weakening democracy. “I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration, because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton said, referring to the upsurge of far-right populism destabilizing countries such as France and Hungary. “I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken, particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message—‘We are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’—because if we don’t deal with the migration issue, it will continue to roil the body politic.” Clinton’s assessment of the European political situation is accurate. According to recent poll numbers, 63 percent of French people believe too many immigrants are living in their country. One-third of the British people who voted in 2016 to leave the European Union cited immigration as their primary reason. In Germany, 38 percent rate immigration as the most important issue facing their country. Thanks in great part to their anti-immigration messages, populist parties now govern Italy, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. And of course, anti-immigration sentiment was crucial to the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States. Immigration on a very large scale is politically stressful. Yet acknowledging that fact can be hazardous to mainstream politicians. The New York Times story on Clinton’s remarks quoted four scathing reactions from liberal interest groups and academics—and then for icy good measure balanced them with a single approving quote from an Italian politician who had hosted Trump’s former campaign chair, Steve Bannon, in Rome. It wasn’t always this way, even on the left. As recently as 2015, the senator and presidential aspirant Bernie Sanders defended at least some immigration restrictions in language drawn from the immigration-skeptical tradition of organized labor. “What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy,” Sanders said in an interview with Vox. “Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.” Even the famously cosmopolitan Barack Obama, in his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, lamented, “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.” But the political rise of Donald Trump has radicalized many of his opponents on immigration. Some mainstream liberal commentators, such as Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times, have called for completely open borders. While not many Democrats have gone that far publicly, some—including most prominently the 2020 presidential hopefuls—have expressed ever greater unease about removing people who cross borders unauthorized. Julián Castro, the secretary of housing and urban development under Obama, has endorsed a pathway to citizenship for all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Senator Kamala Harris pledged not to vote to reopen the federal government in January unless the financing bill confirmed protection for Dreamers, young people who grew up in the United States without legal status. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand have called for abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Gillibrand denounced the agency as a “deportation force”—as if it were possible to enforce immigration laws without deportation. While it would be destabilizing and impractical to remove all the people who have been living peaceably in this country for many years, it does not follow that any nonfelon who sets foot in the U.S. has a right to stay here. In the fall of 2018, an unprecedentedly large caravan of would-be border crossers—peaking at 7,000 people—headed toward the United States from Central America. Trump demagogically seized on the caravan as a voting issue before the November midterm elections—and goaded many of his critics to equally inflammatory responses. “This whole caravan in the last week of the election is a giant lie. This is Trump’s Reichstag fire. It is a lie,” said a guest on MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes. But however manipulatively oversold, the caravan existed; it was not a lie. Thousands of people were indeed approaching the U.S. border, many hoping to force their way across by weight of numbers. Demagogues don’t rise by talking about irrelevant issues. Demagogues rise by talking about issues that matter to people, and that more conventional leaders appear unwilling or unable to address: unemployment in the 1930s, crime in the 1960s, mass immigration now. Voters get to decide what the country’s problems are. Political elites have to devise solutions to those problems. If difficult issues go unaddressed by responsible leaders, they will be exploited by irresponsible ones. Across the developed world, very high levels of immigration have coincided with widening class divisions, the discrediting of political and economic elites, and the rise of extremist politics. And immigration pressures will only intensify in the decades ahead, for reasons obscured by media coverage of immigrants as poor and desperate. That coverage isn’t entirely wrong. Many immigrants are poor and desperate, especially refugees fleeing war or famine. But immigration is accelerating so rapidly in the 21st century less because of pervading misery than because life on our planet is improving for so many people. It costs money to move—and more and more families can afford the investment to send a relative northward. “Every boat person I’ve met has been ambitious, urban, educated,” says Doug Saunders, a Canadian journalist who has reported extensively on global population movements. “They are very poor by European standards, but often comfortable by African and Middle Eastern ones.” Since 1990, the number of human beings living in extreme poverty—defined as less than $2 a day—has declined by nearly two-thirds. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted into a new global striver class, living on $10 to $20 a day or more. That comparative affluence allows the strivers to buy things once impossibly out of reach: air conditioners, smartphones, motorized vehicles. But the thing those strivers want more than anything else—the great golden ticket into a whole new life—is exit from the less successful countries of the global South into the more successful countries of the global North. One-quarter of young male Egyptians would work abroad if they could, according to the Egyptian government’s own statistical agency. More than half the populations of South Africa and Kenya wish to leave home, according to the Pew Research Center, as do three-quarters of Nigerians and Ghanaians. In all these countries, it is the best-educated who most yearn to leave. We are talking here about astonishingly large numbers of potential immigrants—large and fast-growing. Egypt will add 50 million people to its population over the next three decades. Bangladesh will reach 200 million people; Pakistan, 300 million. The populations of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, countries that have already sent so many people northward, will rise by 50 percent by 2050, to more than 47 million. Twenty-six African countries will double their population by the time today’s college seniors celebrate their 50th birthday. Altogether, the population of Africa in 2050 will almost equal the entire population of the world in 1950: 2.5 billion people. Hundreds of millions of people will want to become Americans. Only a relatively small number realistically can. Who should choose which ones do? According to what rules? How will those rules be enforced? The Trump-era debate about a wall misses the point. The planet of tomorrow will be better educated, more mobile, more networked. Huddling behind a concrete barrier will not hold the world at bay when more and more of that world can afford a plane ticket. If Americans want to shape their own national destiny, rather than have it shaped by others, they have decisions to make now. But at present, the most important immigration decisions are made through an ungainly and ill-considered patchwork of policies. Almost 70 percent of those who settle lawfully in the United States gained entry because they were close relatives of previously admitted immigrants. Many of those previously admitted immigrants were in their turn relatives of someone who had arrived even earlier. Every year some 50,000 people are legally admitted by lottery. Others buy their way in, by investing a considerable sum. In almost every legal immigration category, the United States executes its policy less by conscious decision than by excruciating delay. The backlog of people whose immigration petitions have been approved for entry but who have not yet been admitted is now nearing 4 million. (Only spouses and children are exempted from annual numerical caps.) This system just accreted, reaction upon reaction, yesterday’s crisis leading to today’s improvisation, in turn laying the groundwork for tomorrow’s crisis. Under present immigration policies, the U.S. population will exceed 400 million by 2050. Nobody is seriously planning for such population growth—building the schools and hospitals these people will need, planning for the traffic they will generate. Nobody is thinking very hard about the environmental consequences, either. The average American causes the emission of almost 17 tons of carbon dioxide each year, quadruple the annual emissions of the average Mexican and 45 times the emissions of the average Bangladeshi. The question before the United States and other advanced countries is not: Immigration, yes or no? In a mobile world, there will inevitably be quite a lot of movement of people. Immigration is not all or nothing. The questions to ask are: How much? What kind? Too little immigration, and you freeze your country out of the modern world. Too much, or the wrong kind, and you overstress your social-insurance system—and possibly upend your democracy. Choose well, and you build a stronger, richer country for both newcomers and the long-settled. Choose badly, and you aggravate inequality and inflame intergroup hostility. How we choose will shape the future that will in its turn shape us. II. A Recipe for Social Discord If you were born in West Africa or Central America to a family not of the ruling elite, you would probably yearn to emigrate. And if your family and friends could stake you the travel costs, you would probably seize the chance. A young person enterprising enough to hazard such a trip would surely contribute in many ways to his or her eventual new home. Almost all of us in North America are descended from somebody who made such a decision, took that risk, and made those contributions. But what happens when it’s not just one person or 1,000 people or even 1 million people who want to move? What happens when it’s tens or hundreds of millions knocking on the doors of the developed world? And what happens when those vast numbers of newcomers arrive, not in mass-production economies whose factories and mills need every pair of hands they can hire, but in modern knowledge economies that struggle to achieve full employment and steady wage growth? Some people look at migration pressures and see a solution. The 325 million Americans of 2017 gave birth to fewer babies than did the 160 million Americans of 1953. Without immigration, the U.S. population would age and then shrink. So would most European populations. Japan is leading the way to the dwindling future: In 2017, 1.34 million Japanese people died; only 946,000 were born. Precisely because advanced societies have so few children of their own, immigration brings change at startling speed. Relative to the existing native-born population, the migration of 1880–1914 was larger than that of today. (The 75 million Americans of 1900 would receive 8 million immigrants, or almost 11 percent of their number, over the next decade. The 249 million Americans of 1990 would receive 15 million to 16 million immigrants, or 6 percent of their number, over the next decade—the peak of the current wave.) Yet from 1890 onward, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population actually declined, because so many children were born in the United States. Today, a relatively smaller amount of immigration is exerting larger population effects, because Americans are not replacing themselves. When natives have lots of children of their own, immigrants look like reinforcements. When natives have few children, immigrants look like replacements. No wonder that, according to a 2016 survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic, nearly half of white working-class Americans agree with this statement: “Things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.” A classic 2005 study by the social scientist Karen Stenner predicted the consequences of such feelings. In any given population, according to Stenner, roughly one-third of people will have authoritarian tendencies. This habit of mind is just part of the way human beings are, in much the same way that a certain percentage will be born with depressive tendencies. Happily, the authoritarian tendency does not necessarily lead to authoritarian politics. In secure and stable circumstances, it goes dormant. But perceived threats to social norms trigger the tendency. Rapid ethnic change figures prominently on the list of such apparent threats. “Authoritarian [personalities] are not especially inclined to perceive normative … threat,” Stenner writes. “They are just especially intolerant once they do.” The extremism and authoritarianism that have surged within the developed world since 2005 draw strength from many social and economic causes. Immigration is only one of them—but it is typically the spark that ignites the larger conflagration. Immigration has done particular damage to political parties of the moderate left. From the 1970s until the 2010s, social-democratic parties dominated the politics of the European Union member states. As of last spring, among the 28 governments of the EU, only Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden were led by social democrats. The German Social Democrats have suffered a staggering series of defeats at the national and state levels. In the October 2018 state elections in Bavaria, they lost half their seats, finishing in fifth place behind the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party. It’s sometimes suggested that the passage of time will salve these anxieties—that elderly Trump voters in America, or elderly Marine Le Pen voters in France, will eventually be replaced by younger voters more amenable to immigration. But young white Americans express nearly as much discomfort with demographic change as their elders do. Almost half of white Millennials say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. Whites under age 30 voted for Donald Trump in 2016 by a four-point majority, according to CNN exit polls. In European countries too, notably France, the parties of the far right are appealing more and more to the young. Anti-immigrant feeling usually runs strongest in places that receive relatively few immigrants—stronger in eastern Germany than in Hamburg or Frankfurt; stronger in Hull and Stoke-on-Trent than in London; stronger in Laon than in Paris; stronger in rural America than in the multiethnic cities of the knowledge economy. Yet nonmetropolitan places are experiencing immigration in their own way. Mobility between countries appears to have the perverse effect of discouraging mobility within countries—in effect, moating off the most dynamic regions of national economies from their own depressed hinterlands. Americans in the 2010s are only half as likely to move to a new state as their parents were in the 1980s. What has changed? Economic researchers have refuted some possible explanations—the aging of the population, for example. The most plausible alternative is directly immigration-related: Housing costs in the hottest job markets have grown much faster than the wages offered to displaced workers. Simply put, a laid-off Ohio manufacturing worker contemplating relocating to Colorado to seek a job in the hospitality industry is likely to discover that the move offers no higher pay, but much higher rent. An immigrant from Mexico or the Philippines faces a very different calculus. Her wage gains would be significant. And while her housing options may seem lousy to someone accustomed to an American standard of living, to her they likely represent a bearable sacrifice for all the other opportunities offered by life in the United States—and possibly a material improvement over living conditions back home. III. The Wrong Debate “We wanted workers, but we got people instead.” So quipped the Swiss writer Max Frisch about the guest workers who came to northern Europe seeking economic opportunity in the aftermath of World War II. Yet when immigration is the subject, policy makers tend to concede the microphone to the economists—precisely the profession that looks at people and sees workers instead. >From an economic point of view, immigration is good because it encourages specialization and thus efficiency. In a low-immigration world, an American accountant might have to pay $25 or $30 an hour for yard services by American-born landscapers. At that price, she might choose to do the yard work herself. If higher immigration lowers the price of landscaping work to $10 to $12 an hour, she may hire a landscaper and devote her newfound free time to extra accounting work. Instead of leaving the office at 5 p.m. to cook dinner for her family, she can stay until 6 o’clock and order from Postmates as she drives home. Or she can buy more services than she otherwise would. A lower bid from an immigrant-employing contractor might allow her to renovate her kitchen this year rather than postponing it to next year. But all of this only happens because lower-earning immigrants displace the Americans who used to do the work at higher costs. You may ask, “So what happens to those displaced Americans?” The economist’s answer is that, pressed by immigrant competition, displaced American workers are driven to “upskill.” Perhaps a former landscaper learns some Spanish, and thus can act as the foreman of a crew of immigrants. Perhaps he shifts to sales or design work. Either way, the economic models say, everybody is better off. You may further ask, “Does this really happen? Don’t at least some displaced American workers end up unemployed or underemployed, unable to find work at anything close to their old wage level? Aren’t both American-born men and American-born women of prime working age less likely to work today than in the 1990s?” Read: Does immigration harm working Americans? Yes, all of that is true. But when workers quit the workforce, they disappear from the statistical samples on which the economic models are built. Labor-force statistics count only those in the labor force. If an American-born landscaper successfully upskills to foreman, his higher pay is recorded and measured. If an American-born landscaper retires early on a disability benefit, his lower income is not recorded and not measured. From a labor economist’s perspective, he has ceased to exist. Immigration’s economic costs and benefits will be calculated without reference to him. The battles over the accuracy of the models of immigration’s economic effects are as protracted and vicious as any in the social sciences. We can’t settle them here, and don’t need to. Instead, let’s focus on what economists generally do agree on. First, adding millions of additional immigrant workers every decade makes the American economy in the aggregate much bigger than it would otherwise be. Second, immigration contributes very little to making native-born Americans richer than they would otherwise be. In 2007, in the course of arguing the economic case for more immigration, George W. Bush’s White House tried to quantify the net economic benefits of immigration to native-born Americans. The advocates’ own calculation yielded a figure of $37 billion a year. That’s not nothing, but in the context of a then–$13 trillion economy, it’s not much. Third, the gains from immigration are divided very unequally. Immigrants reap most of them. Wealthy Americans claim much of the rest, in the form of the lower prices they pay for immigrant-produced services. Low-income Americans receive comparatively little benefit, and may well be made worse off, depending on who’s counting and what method they use. >From 1996: In the new economics of immigration, affluent Americans win And finally, while the impact of immigration on what the typical American earns is quite small, its impact on government finances is big. Estimates from the National Academy of Sciences suggest that on average, each immigrant costs his or her state and local governments $1,600 more a year in expenditures than he or she contributes in revenues. In especially generous states, the cost is much higher still: $2,050 in California; $3,650 in Wisconsin; $5,100 in Minnesota. Immigrants are expensive to taxpayers because the foreign-born population of the United States is more likely to be poor and stay poor. Even when immigrants themselves do not qualify for a government benefit—typically because they are in the country illegally—their low income ensures that their children do. About half of immigrant-headed households receive some form of social assistance in any given year. Assertions that federal tax revenue from immigrants can stabilize the finances of programs such as Medicare and Social Security overlook the truth that immigrants will get old and sick—and that in most cases, the taxes they pay over their working life will not cover the costs of their eventual claims on these programs. No matter how many millions of immigrants we absorb, they can’t help shore up these programs if they’ll need more in benefits than they can ever possibly pay in taxes. If a goal of immigration policy is to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, it would be wise to accept fewer immigrants overall, but more high-earning ones, who will pay more in taxes over their working years than they will collect in benefits in retirement. Under the present policy favoring large numbers of low-wage earners, the United States is accumulating huge future social-insurance liabilities in exchange for relatively meager tax contributions now. Yet the true bottom line is this: Neither the fiscal costs nor the economic benefits of immigration are large enough to force a decision one way or the other. Accept the most negative estimate of immigration’s dollar costs, and the United States could still afford a lot of immigration. Believe the most positive reckoning of the dollar benefits that mass immigration provides, and they are not so large that the United States would be crazy to refuse them. For good or ill, immigration’s most important effects are social and cultural, not economic. What are these effects, then? Some are good, some are bad, and some depend on the eye of the beholder. IMMIGRANTS ARE MAKING AMERICA SAFER. Generally, immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans do. And although the children of immigrants commit crimes at much higher rates than their parents do, some evidence suggests that cities with higher percentages of immigrants have experienced steeper reductions in crime. President Trump speaks often about the victims of crime committed by undocumented immigrants, but the years of high immigration since 1990 have seen the steepest declines in crime since modern record-keeping began. IMMIGRANTS ARE MAKING AMERICA LESS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE. Asians, who comprise the nation’s fastest-growing immigrant group, are half as likely to abuse drugs or alcohol as other population groups are. Only one-fifth of Hispanic households own a firearm, as opposed to one-half of white households. The severest self-harm, suicide, is very much a problem of the native-born. Suicide rates have surged since 1999. But white people commit suicide at nearly three times the rate of ethnic minorities. The states with the highest percentages of immigrants have suffered least from the suicide surge; the states with the lowest percentages have suffered most. IMMIGRANTS ARE LOWERING AMERICA’S AVERAGE SKILL LEVEL. In 2007, ETS—the company that administers the SAT—warned of a gathering “perfect storm”: “Over the next 25 years or so,” it said, “as better-educated individuals leave the workforce they will be replaced by those who, on average, have lower levels of education and skill.” This warning shows every sign of being fulfilled. About 10 percent of the students in U.S. public schools are now non-native English speakers. Unsurprisingly, these students score consistently lower on national assessment tests than native speakers do. In 2017, nearly half of Hispanic fourth graders had not achieved even partial mastery of grade-level material. According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, these children are at significant risk of dropping out of high school. But here’s something more surprising: Evidence from North Carolina suggests that even a fairly small increase in the non-native-speaking presence in a classroom seriously depresses learning outcomes for all students. The nation has undertaken important educational reforms over the past generation. In many ways, that commitment has yielded heartening results. Yet since about 2007, progress has stalled, and in some cases even reversed. Cuts to state budgets during the Great Recession bear some of the responsibility. But so does immigration policy. The Hechinger Report, from Columbia University’s Teachers College, observes that the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress “was the first time that white students dropped below 50 percent of fourth-grade test takers. Hispanics now account for 26 percent of the fourth-grade population, up from 19 percent 10 years ago. Disproportionately poor, and sometimes not speaking English at home, Hispanics tend to score considerably lower than white students.” IMMIGRANTS ARE ENABLING EMPLOYERS TO BEHAVE BADLY. Most jobs are becoming impressively safer, year by year. You may think of mining as a uniquely hazardous industry. Yet in 2006, after a tragic sequence of accidents, Congress enacted the most sweeping mine-safety legislation in a generation. In the decade since, mining fatalities have declined by two-thirds. Mining, however, is an industry dominated by native-born workers. Industries that rely on the foreign-born are improving much more slowly. Forestry, fishing, and farming are three of the most dangerous industries in the United States. They are 46 percent reliant on immigrant laborers, half of them undocumented. (Documented and undocumented immigrants together make up only 17 percent of the U.S. workforce as a whole.) Building and grounds maintenance is surprisingly dangerous work: 326 people died in 2017. Some 35 percent of grounds workers are immigrants. About 25 percent of construction workers are immigrants, but immigrants supply almost half the workers in the most dangerous areas, notably roofing and drywalling. When so many workers in a job category toil outside the law, the law won’t offer much protection. America was built on the revolutionary idea, never fully realized, that those who labor might also govern—that every worker should be a voter. The struggle toward this ideal has been slow, arduous, and sometimes violent. The immigration surge has had the effect of setting this ideal back. Half a century after the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the United States has again habituated itself to employing workers who cannot vote and therefore cannot protect their interests or even their lives. IMMIGRANTS ARE ALTERING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AMERICANS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT, AND MAKING THE COUNTRY MORE HIERARCHICAL. Visitors to the United States used to be startled by the casual egalitarianism of American manners. “Have you ever realized to yourself as a fact that the porter who carries your box has not made himself inferior to you by the very act of carrying that box?” Anthony Trollope asked readers back home in Victorian England. If not, brace yourself: “That is the very lesson which the man wishes to teach you.” That lesson may no longer be getting taught. In 1970, almost every U.S. resident was a U.S. citizen, enjoying all the political and civil rights of citizenship. Today, in immigration-dense states such as California, Texas, New Jersey, and New York, at least 10 percent of residents are not citizens. These people occupy a wide array of subordinated legal statuses. Some are legal permanent residents, lacking only the right to vote. Some are legal temporary residents, allowed to work but requiring permission to change employers. Some hold student visas, allowing them to study here but not to work. Some, such as the Dreamers, and persons displaced by natural disasters in the Caribbean or Central America, may have entered the country illegally but are authorized to remain and work under a temporary status that can continue for years or decades. America is not yet Dubai or Qatar or ancient Athens, where citizenship is almost an aristocratic status rather than the shared birthright of all residents. But more and more of the people who live among Americans are not on equal legal footing with Americans. They cannot vote. They cannot qualify as jurors. If they commit a crime, they are subject not only to prison but to deportation. And because these noncitizens are keenly aware of those things, they adjust their behavior. They keep a low profile. They do not complain to the authorities if, say, their boss cheats them out of some of their pay, or if they’ve been attacked on the street, or if they are abused by a parent or partner at home. Heavy immigration has enabled the powerful—and the policy makers who disproportionately heed the powerful—to pay less attention to the disarray in so many segments of the U.S. population. Because the country imports so many workers, employers do not miss the labor of the millions of men consigned to long-term incarceration. Without the immigrant workers less prone to abuse drugs than the native-born, American elites might have noticed the opioid epidemic before it killed more Americans than died in the Vietnam, Korean, and Iraq Wars and the 9/11 attacks combined. The demand for universal health coverage might gain political force if so many of the uninsured were not noncitizens and nonvoters. None of this is immigrants’ fault, obviously. It is more true that America’s tendency to plutocracy explains immigration policies than that immigration policies explain the tendency to plutocracy. Managing immigration better is only one element of restoring equity to American life. But it is an essential element, without which it is hard to imagine how any other element can be achieved. IV. What’s the Right Level of Immigration? Immigration offers americans access to a wider range of human talent. It offers immigrants a chance at a better life. It is grounded in American history and relied upon by the American economy. The birth rate among native-born Americans has generally been below the replacement level since the early 1970s—meaning that some amount of immigration is indispensable to simply keeping the population stable. The gratuitous brutalities of the Trump administration shock the conscience, and fail even on their own terms. Intended as deterrents, they are not deterring. They are succeeding only in counterradicalizing liberal opinion to stigmatize almost all immigration enforcement against nonfelons as cruel, racist, and unacceptable. Trump talks about a wall because he thinks about immigration in terms of symbols. Keep out, he wants to say, and what symbolizes that truculent message better than slabs of concrete arrayed like incisors in a line running from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean? But immigration needs to be thought of as a system, not a symbol. And the system is not working. No intentional policy has led the U.S. to accept more low-wage, low-skill laborers and fewer cancer researchers. Yet that is what the United States is doing. Virtually all the Central American families and unaccompanied minors who crossed the border in the summer of 2014 still remain in the United States. Meanwhile, the number of people coming to study in the United States on F-1 visas has sharply declined since 2015. President Trump seethes against illegal border crossings. Yet at least five of his golf resorts employed undocumented laborers for the first two years of his presidency. This happened because the first group is labeled “asylum seekers,” subject to one set of rules, and the second group is categorized as student-visa applicants, subject to another. The distinction derives from laws and treaties adopted in the aftermath of World War II, when the plight of refugees from Nazism and communism were at the forefront of consciousness. But these categorizations apply poorly to a world in which tens of millions of people are on the move in search of better lives. The young woman from Pakistan who finds refuge from a male-dominated society in an American cancer-research lab is an asylum seeker as well as an economic migrant; the Guatemalan who witnessed an uncle’s murder and so decided to seek safer streets and better wages in the United States is an economic migrant as well as an asylum seeker. The supposedly watertight legal categories blur, leaving a question: Who should be invited to join with the natives of the United States to build, together, a better life for the Americans of today and tomorrow? The family-reunification bias of present U.S. immigration policy effectively delegates that decision to immigrant diasporas in the United States. On average, a settled immigrant will sponsor 3.5 relatives to follow him or her into the United States. Family ties also help explain the dynamics of unauthorized immigration. Central American asylum seekers say they are fleeing crime in their home countries. Yet asylum-seeking has surged even as crime in Central America has subsided. El Salvador’s homicide rate has dropped by half since 2015; Honduras’s has plunged by 75 percent since 2013. As these asylum seekers have settled in the United States, they have beckoned their families to follow. U.S. adjudicators have rejected the vast majority of Central American asylum applications. But that has not diminished the flow from Central America. The process is slow, and a rejected application can be appealed. As the proceedings grind on, asylum seekers can vanish into diaspora communities where they can find housing, work, and welcome. The asylum seekers are advancing their interests and those of their families as best they can. Americans have the same responsibility to do what is best for Americans. A smaller immigration intake would dramatically slow the growth in the foreign-born share of the population, better shielding democratic political systems from extremist authoritarian reactions. Cutting the legal annual intake in half—back to the 540,000 a year that prevailed before the Immigration Act of 1990—would still keep the U.S. population growing strongly even if native birth rates never recover from their present deeply depressed levels. And shifting that intake sharply away from family reunification (by, for example, ending preferences for adult siblings) would enable the U.S. to emphasize acceptance of highly skilled, high-earning immigrants—more doctors from Nigeria, say, or software engineers from India. Fewer, but higher-earning, immigrants would contribute more to Medicare and Social Security, while requiring less assistance from state social-welfare programs for themselves and their children. Even at lower immigration levels, America will continue to move rapidly toward greater ethnic diversity. Under today’s policies, the U.S. will become majority-minority in about 2044. Even cutting immigration by nearly half would postpone that historical juncture by only one to five years, according to computations by The Washington Post. The higher birth rates of the immigrants already living in this country have determined what the American future will look like demographically. The challenge for today’s Americans is to allow that new demography to develop in an environment of social equality and cultural cohesion. Immigration cannot be reduced overnight. The 4-million-person backlog of approved admissions will have to be cleared. But as authorities process fewer legal immigrants, they will be able to concentrate resources more effectively to combat unlawful immigration. The phrase border security seriously distorts our understanding of illegal immigration. By some tallies, more than half of the most recent immigrants in the country illegally arrived legally—typically as a student or tourist—then overstayed their visa. They obeyed the law when they entered. They broke it by failing to leave. They get away with this because the U.S. concentrates its immigration enforcement on the frontier—while slighting the workplace. President Trump seethes against illegal border crossings. Yet at least five of his golf resorts employed undocumented laborers for the first two years of his presidency. At one of his resorts, fully half the winter-season employees worked illegally. The Trump Organization will almost certainly face no consequences for its lawbreaking. Scofflaw employers rarely do. To its credit, the Trump administration has stepped up workplace enforcement somewhat since 2017. But while immigration investigations and audits are increasing, they remain rare. The massive deportation of people who have lived in the country for a long time would serve no one well. But employers of unauthorized labor should face and fear fines sufficient to deter lawbreaking. If employers stop hiring undocumented workers, those workers will not be induced to cross the border in the first place. Even more urgently, employers who take advantage of immigration status—to cheat workers of their pay, or harass or abuse them sexually, or force them to work in unsafe conditions—should be prime targets for criminal prosecution. As states raise their minimum wages, the temptation to hire people of precarious immigration status will intensify. It is the workplace that most needs additional enforcement resources. Americans also need to rethink asylum policy. If unemployment, poverty, or disorder in your home country qualifies you for asylum, then hundreds of millions of people qualify—even though virtually none of them has been targeted by the kind of state-sponsored persecution that asylum laws were originally written to redress. If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do. The U.S. immigration system offers an even less practical response to the problems of displaced persons and refugees. In a mass population exodus like that from the Syrian civil war, plucking only a lucky handful to jet to a new land is a mostly empty palliative, since that leaves virtually every other victim of the war no better off. The immigration-skeptical Center for Immigration Studies estimates that it costs 12 times more to resettle a refugee in the United States than to house, feed, and provide work for that refugee in his or her safest neighboring country. “How to help those displaced by conflict?” and “How should we select our future fellow Americans?” need to be seen as different questions requiring different sets of answers. With immigration pressures bound to increase, it becomes more imperative than ever to restore the high value of national citizenship, not to denigrate or disparage others but because for many of your fellow citizens—perhaps less affluent, educated, and successful than you—the claim “I am a U.S. citizen” is the only claim they have to any resources or protection. Without immigration restrictions, there are no national borders. Without national borders, there are no nation-states. Without nation-states, there are no electorates. Without electorates, there is no democracy. If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do. Yes, borders are arbitrary. And, yes, more people are arguing that we should care as much about people in faraway lands as we do about our fellow Americans. But the practical effect of making this argument is to enable the powerful to care as little for their fellow Americans as they do for people in faraway lands. A quarter of the 45 million foreign-born people currently living in the U.S. arrived here illegally. As of 2016, two-thirds of them had resided in the United States for 10 years or more. They cannot reasonably be expected to leave. Those who arrived as children know no other home. In a decade or two, millions of people without legal status will reach the age of 65. What happens to them? Under present law, they will receive no Social Security from the United States; they will not qualify for Medicare. Will we allow them to sink into illness and destitution in their old age? Many of the Democratic candidates for president want to expand Medicare to citizens under age 65. Will millions of people in the United States be left without care? Health care for all is not consistent with an immigration policy that does not police the boundaries of that “all.” If undocumented immigrants are to be included in the American “us” (as sooner or later many will have to be), then the country has to be assured that large-scale illegal immigration will never again be tacitly tolerated as it was over the past generation. It will not be easy to make a success of the low-skill and often illegal immigration to the United States over the past three decades, to extend equal opportunity to all, to assimilate into a common nationality those who arrived speaking Mixtec or Bengali or Fula. It was hard enough to do this in the 19th century, when home was a three-week sea voyage away. Today, when immigrants can remain easily connected to their place of origin—and when the native majority has lost confidence in a unitary American identity—the task of assimilation is even harder. Where once the nation’s cultural leaders condemned “hyphenated Americanism,” today the hyphen has become a tool of cultural power. Those white Americans who might not have a hyphen obviously at hand now scramble to invent one. They have become “hardworking Americans” or “everyday Americans” or “real Americans”—separating themselves from a shared destiny with other Americans. No American more eloquently deplored hyphenation than Theodore Roosevelt. Read his words in full, and you see that Roosevelt’s insistence on a singular national identity was founded not on any sense of hereditary supremacy, but on his passionately patriotic egalitarianism. The children and children’s children of all of us have to live here in this land together. Our children’s children will intermarry, one with another, your children’s children, friends, and mine. They will be the citizens of one country. One country. How many Americans feel that way about their country now? Yet that is how it must be, how it can be. More than any other area of government, U.S. immigration policy is driven by nostalgia—by ancestral memories of a world long gone. Give me your tired, your poor … RELATED STORIES How Trump Radicalized ICE How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration This is no way to think about the problems of today. These are new times, calling for new thinking. The wealth of 21st-century America is not found in farms and mines, but in the skill and productivity of its people. It has never been more important to invest in those people. When somebody seeks to join the American national community, that person is asking the United States to honor a multigenerational commitment to him or her and to each of his or her descendants. Americans are entitled to consider carefully whom they will number among themselves. They would be irresponsible not to consider this carefully—because all of these expensive commitments must be built on a deep agreement that all who live inside the borders of the United States count as “ourselves.” The years of slow immigration, 1915 to 1975, were also years in which the United States became a more cohesive nation: the years of the civil-rights revolution, the building of a mass middle class, the construction of a national social-insurance system, the projection of U.S. power in two world wars. As immigration has accelerated, the country seems to have splintered apart. Many Americans feel that the country is falling short of its promises of equal opportunity and equal respect. Levels of immigration that are too high only enhance the difficulty of living up to those promises. Reducing immigration, and selecting immigrants more carefully, will enable the country to more quickly and successfully absorb the people who come here, and to ensure equality of opportunity to both the newly arrived and the long-settled—to restore to Americans the feeling of belonging to one united nation, responsible for the care and flourishing of all its people. This article appears in the April 2019 print edition with the headline “How Much Immigration Is Too Much?” David Frum, The Atlantic, April 2019 DAVID FRUM is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic. In 2001 and 2002, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush. From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Mar 11 19:00:34 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:00:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The Growing Antisemitism Scam" In-Reply-To: <409D7E7D-80B6-4C8F-BD9F-800A4ACA0191@icloud.com> References: <8525BF92-0F10-4DA4-A59E-A9B7B24602F2@icloud.com> <409D7E7D-80B6-4C8F-BD9F-800A4ACA0191@icloud.com> Message-ID: As long as the interests of elites in both countries coincide, then many can safely practice their loyalty to Israel. When they don't, very few will side with Israel. Thus we sell weapons to Saudi Arabia; and Jonathan Pollard remained in prison for quite some time. On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:29 AM Morton K. Brussel wrote: > In my view, this begs the question: Are there not many Zionist Americans > who have a dual loyalty to Israeli interests over and above American > interests. I say yes. > > The arguments here seem irrelevent to this, Chomsky or Finkelstein and > "Congressional support and general support among the political class" > notwithstanding. > > On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:47 AM, David Green wrote: > > As Chomsky has pointed out on numerous occasions, the American liberal > intellectual class fell in love with Israel in 1967, when Israel clearly > promoted American hegemony in the Middle East by smashing Arab nationalism. > Until then, the "dual loyalty" charge could be yielded against them; after > 1967, not so much. There are obviously those who have decided to emigrate, > but that is neither here nor there regarding Congressional support and > general support among the political class. Far from dual loyalty, loyalty > to the U.S. and Israel are seen as one. As Chomsky and Finkelstein have > also stated, when Israel is no longer central to American hegemony, its > support will prove not to be rooted in a sincere support for Jewish > nationalism; even if they love to sing Hatikvah. > > A good example of "dual loyalty" would be Rahm Emanuel, who twice > volunteered to serve in the IDF. But of course he is loyal to the > capitalist class over all. And the U.S. is where the global capitalist > class has its headquarters. > > DG > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 10:51 PM Morton K. Brussel > wrote: > >> I wrote this some time ago, but evidently didn’t send it off… >> >> My reading of those in the Jewish community who are ardent Zionists >> indeed have a dual allegiance irrespective of American interests. We have a >> few here at CLV. David, what are your impressions with members of the >> Temple community? How about those who have emigrated to Israel from the >> U.S.? >> >> On Mar 4, 2019, at 10:41 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Only so long as Israel remains useful to American control of the region, >> which it most certainly will in the foreseeable future. >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brussel, Morton K >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:08 PM, David Green >>> wrote: >>> >>> Accusations of anti-semitism are certainly politically motivated and >>> despicable; nevertheless those who make them cannot credibly accused of >>> "dual loyalty." They have simply adopted these tactics in relation to their >>> support for American Empire. >>> >>> >>> ???—only if the American Empire backs Israel? >>> >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:39 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> By Philip Giraldi: >>>> >>>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51165.htm >>>> >>>> —mkb >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Tue Mar 12 12:34:59 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shlomo Sand: Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists References: <1097970622.3146592.1552394099702.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1097970622.3146592.1552394099702@mail.yahoo.com> It seems to me that the definition of Semite was narrowly interpreted by the Nazis as a race of Jews of any description, (the way Netanyahu casts the meaning, excluding other peoples who also descend from Abraham such as Arabs) and identifies Nazi anti-semitism as anti-Jewish.  Included in this subset was the political militant organization of Jews known as Zionism, which has come to typify the politics of the state of Israel that critics of Israeli discrimination object to and in recent political parlance is misconstrued as "anti-semitism."   Midge -----Original Message----- From: Mildred O'brien via Peace-discuss To: davidgreen50 ; peace-discuss Sent: Mon, Mar 11, 2019 9:14 am Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Shlomo Sand: Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists I maintain that all the recent superficial and ignorant talk by politicians (and others) who epitomize that ilk should be required to DEFINE what is meant by the popularly resurrected term "anti-semitism".  Mr. Shlomo explores the variations of meaning and presents a proper definition and description of the many misunderstandings of the meanings of Semitism, Judeophobe and Zionism. Midge -----Original Message----- From: David Green via Peace-discuss tant To: Peace-discuss Sent: Sat, Mar 9, 2019 2:20 pm Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shlomo Sand: Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4256-semites-anti-semites-zionists-and-anti-zionists?fbclid=IwAR2JYMfoho_O6sXTYSukZ09Z1IfU-Pp2HEcMKskyqeCCHEufrK43q4fdbTg Shlomo Sand04 March 2019 Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists and Anti-Zionists Emmanuel Macron recently described anti-Zionism as a new form of antisemitism, setting in motion a process to criminalize anti-Zionism. In this article, Shlomo Sand discusses changing natures of Judeophobia, Zionism, and of Jewish indentity Although I live in Israel, the ‘state of the Jewish people’, I have closely followed recent debate in France on anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. If any anti-Jewish expression in the world always worries me, I feel a certain disgust at the flood of hypocrisy and manipulation orchestrated by those who now want to criminalize anyone who criticizes Zionism. Let’s start with the problem of definition. For a long time now, I have felt uneasy not only about the recently popular formula ‘Judeo-Christian civilization’, but also about the conventional use of the term ‘anti-Semitism’. We all know that the word was coined in the second half of the nineteenth century by Wilhelm Marr, a German national-populist who hated Jews. In the spirit of that time, users of the term basically assumed the existence of a hierarchy of races in which the European white man was at the top, while the Semitic race occupied a lower rank. One of the founders of this ‘science of race’ was the Frenchman Arthur Gobineau. Nowadays, history is a little more serious. It recognizes Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic, widespread in the Near East), but not any Semitic race. Given that European Jews did not speak Hebrew in everyday life, this being used only for prayer (just as Christians used Latin), it is hard to consider them as Semites. Should we remind ourselves that modern hatred towards Jews is above all a legacy of the Christian churches? As early as the fourth century, Christianity refused to consider Judaism a legitimate competing religion and created the famous myth of exile: Jews had been exiled from Palestine for participating in the murder of God’s son, and have to be humiliated to demonstrate their inferiority. It should be noted, however, that there never was any such exile of Jews from Palestine, and not even the least historical work on the subject can be found. Personally, I belong to the traditional school of thought that refuses to see Jews as a race-people alien to Europe. As far back as the nineteenth century, Ernest Renan, after having freed himself from his racism, maintained that: ‘The Jew of Gallic times... was, most often, simply a Gaul professing the Israelite religion.’ Historian Marc Bloch pointed out that Jews were ‘a group of believers recruited in the past from across the Mediterranean, Turkic-Khazar and Slavic world’. Raymond Aron added: ‘So-called Jews are not biologically, for the most part, descendants of Semitic tribes.’ Judeophobia, however, has always persisted in seeing Jews not as followers of a significant religious belief, but as a foreign nation. The slow decline of Christianity as a hegemonic religion in Europe was unfortunately not accompanied by a decline in the strong Judeophobic tradition. ‘Secular’ writers transformed ancestral hatred and fear into modern ‘rational’ ideologies. Prejudices about Jews and Judaism can be found not only in Shakespeare or Voltaire, but also in Hegel and Marx. The Gordian knot between Jews, Judaism and money seemed obvious to the learned elite. The fact that the vast majority of the millions of Jews in Eastern Europe suffered from hunger and lived in poverty had absolutely no effect on Charles Dickens, Feodor Dostoevsky, or a large portion of the European left. In modern France, Judeophobia flourished not only with Alphonse Toussenel, Maurice Barrès and Édouard Drumont, but also with Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon – even, for a time, Jean Jaurès and Georges Sorel. Judeophobia accompanied the advance of democracy as a regular component of the prejudices of the European masses. The Dreyfus affair was its ‘emblematic’ event, until far surpassed by the extermination of Jews during the Second World War. It was between these two historical events that Zionism was born, as an idea and a movement. It should be recalled, however, that until the Second World War the vast majority of Jews and their secular descendants were anti-Zionist. It was not only Orthodox Judaism, strong and organized, that was outraged at the idea of precipitating redemption by emigrating to the Holy Land; the more modern religious currents, both Reform and Conservative, were also strongly opposed to Zionism. The Bund, a secular party supported by the majority of Yiddish-speaking socialists in the tsarist empire and then in independent Poland, saw Zionists as natural allies of Judeophobes. Nor did Communists of Jewish origin miss an opportunity to condemn Zionism as an accomplice to British colonialism. After the extermination of European Jews, the survivors who had failed to find safe haven in North America or the USSR softened their hostile attitude to Zionism, while most countries of both the Western and Communist worlds recognized the state of Israel. The fact that the creation of this state took place in 1948 at the expense of the indigenous Arab population did not unduly bother them. The wave of decolonization was still in its infancy, and not a factor to be taken into account. Israel was then perceived as a refuge for Jews without shelter or home. Despite Zionism having failed to save the Jews of Europe, despite the survivors preferring to emigrate to America, and despite Zionism being a colonial enterprise in the full sense of the term, a significant fact remains: the Zionist diagnosis of the danger to the lives of Jews in twentieth-century European civilization (in no way Judeo-Christian!) had proved correct. Theodore Herzl, pioneer of the Zionist idea, had understood the Judeophobes of his time better than the liberals and Marxists. This certainly does not justify the Zionist definition according to which Jews form a racial people. No more does it justify the Zionists’ view that the Holy Land is a national home to which they have historical rights. The Zionists, however, have created a political fait accompli, and any attempt to erase it would result in further tragedy for the two resulting peoples: the Israelis and the Palestinians. At the same time, we should remember that even if not all Zionists demand continued domination over the territories conquered in 1967, and many of them feel uncomfortable with the apartheid regime that Israel has been exercising there for 52 years, all those who see themselves as Zionists persist in seeing Israel, at least within its 1967 borders, as the state of the Jews of the whole world, rather than a republic for all Israelis, a quarter of whom are not classed as Jewish, 21 per cent being Arabs. If a democracy is fundamentally a state aspiring to the well-being of all its citizens, all those whom it taxes and all children born there, then Israel, despite its political pluralism, is rather a true ethnocracy, as Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European states were before the Second World War. The attempt by President Emmanuel Macron and his party today to criminalize anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism is a cynical and manipulative manoeuvre. If anti-Zionism were to become a criminal offence, perhaps Macron should retroactively indict the Bundist Marek Edelman, who was one of the leaders of the Warsaw ghetto and totally anti-Zionist. He could also invite to the trial those anti-Zionist Communists in France who, rather than emigrating to Palestine, chose armed resistance to Nazism, which led them to figure on the notorious ‘affiche rouge’.[1] If he wants to be consistent in his retroactive condemnation of all critics of Zionism, President Macron will have to include my teacher Madeleine Rebérioux, who chaired the Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, my other teacher and friend, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, and also, of course, Eric Hobsbawm, Edouard Saïd, and many other distinguished figures, who have since passed away but whose writings are still authoritative. If President Macron confines himself to a law against living anti-Zionists, his proposed law should at least apply to those Orthodox Jews in Paris and New York who reject Zionism, and to Naomi Klein, Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky and many other humanist universalists in France and Europe, who identify as Jews while at the same time proclaiming themselves anti-Zionists. There are, of course, idiots who are both anti-Zionist and Judeophobic, just as there are many stupid pro-Zionists (also Judeophobic) who wish Jews would leave France and emigrate to Israel. Should they also be included in this wave of prosecution? Be careful, Monsieur President, not to let yourself be drawn into this vicious circle, just when your popularity is falling! To conclude, I don’t think there is a rise in anti-Judaism in France. This has always existed, and I fear will persist well into the future. However, I have no doubt that one of the factors keeping it going, particularly in certain neighbourhoods where people with an immigrant background live, is precisely Israel’s policy against the Palestinians: both those living as second-class citizens within the ‘Jewish state’, and those who, for 52 years, have suffered brutal military occupation and colonization. I have regularly protested against this tragic situation. I strongly support recognition of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and I belief in a ‘de-Zionization’ of the state of Israel. Should I worry about being taken to court on my next visit to France? Originally published by Médiapart, 25 February 2019. Translated by David Fernbach _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 11 23:24:19 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:24:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US government's despicable client Message-ID: <3F936DA8-EBC3-4369-8B11-FC06416A5A9C@gmail.com> https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-rule-rabbis-fuelling-holy-war-israel The US government supports Israel as a 'stationary aircraft carrier' for American control of world energy resources, but it finds itself linked to an oppressive racist state. —CGE From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Mar 13 04:27:19 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 04:27:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another opportunity for Trump Enterprises In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What’s behind China’s prostitution boom? https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2127627/how-chinas-market-economy-has-fuelled-prostitution-boom From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Mar 14 07:06:42 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] anti-neoliberal notes Message-ID: <62a9700b-99c2-2ad8-b738-277fc4c37cdc@forestfield.org> Here are some notes to spur discussion on News from Neptune. Have a good show guys. Healthcare: ACA plans denied nearly 1 in 5 in-network claims in 2017 https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/aca-plans-denied-nearly-1-in-5-in-network-claims-in-2017/549312/ -- > Affordable Care Act marketplace plans denied 19% of claims submitted > for in-network service in 2017. Only 0.5% of those denied claims were > appealed, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation report. > > KFF found huge denial rate variations between payers, ranging from 1% > to 45%. There were vast differences within states, too. > > Only about 200,000 of the almost 43 million denied claims were > appealed. Appeals reversed denied claims in about 14% of cases, though > there were wide variations among payers (1% to 88%), according to the > analysis. Related: HR1384 was said to be introduced on February 27, 2019 but the text of this bill is still not published on congress.gov. I get: > As of 03/14/2019 text has not been received for H.R.1384 - To establish > an improved Medicare for All national health insurance program. when I reload https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr1384%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1 Is HR1384 being slow-walked? China: China bans 23m from buying travel tickets as part of 'social credit' system https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/china-bans-23m-discredited-citizens-from-buying-travel-tickets-social-credit-system -- People accused of social offences blocked from booking flights and train journeys > China has blocked millions of “discredited” travellers from buying plane > or train tickets as part of the country’s controversial “social credit” > system aimed at improving the behaviour of citizens. > > According to the National Public Credit Information Centre, Chinese > courts banned would-be travellers from buying flights 17.5 million times > by the end of 2018. Citizens placed on black lists for social credit > offences were prevented from buying train tickets 5.5 million times. The > report released last week said: “Once discredited, limited everywhere”. > > The social credit system aims to incentivise “trustworthy” behaviour > through penalties as well as rewards. According to a government document > about the system dating from 2014, the aim is to “allow the trustworthy > to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited > to take a single step.” > > Social credit offences range from not paying individual taxes or fines > to spreading false information and taking drugs. More minor violations > include using expired tickets, smoking on a train or not walking a dog > on a leash. Chelsea Manning to be re-imprisoned for not lying about WikiLeaks/Assange https://youtu.be/J10BgEgu4IQ -- Ben Swann RT report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTqVNKXZYAY -- Jimmy Dore commentary https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/03/09/us-re-imprisons-manning-to-force-her-to-testify-against-wikileaks/ -- > The United States government has just re-imprisoned one of the nation’s > greatest whistleblowers to coerce her into helping to destroy the > world’s greatest leak publisher, both of whom exposed undeniably true > facts about war crimes committed by that same United States government. > Truth tellers are being actively persecuted by this same power > structure which claims it has the moral authority to topple governments > and interfere in international affairs around the world, exactly > because they told the truth. Please take a moment to make sure you’re > really appreciating this. > > Assange started a leak outlet on the premise that corrupt power can be > fought with the light of truth, and corrupt power has responded by > smearing, silencing, and persecuting him and doing everything it can to > stomp out the light of truth, up to and including re-imprisoning an > already viciously brutalized American hero like Chelsea Manning. This > is as clear-cut an admission as you could possibly get that the most > powerful forces in our world are not at all what they pretend to be. > Those who run US government agencies and their collaborators are > monsters, and they’re not even hiding it. Australian leaker faces jail over leaking information on Australian commando misconduct in Afghanistan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJGwm10gfp4 -- former defense lawyer David McBride blew the whistle about alleged war crimes by Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan. These leaks were the basis of the TV show "The Afghan Files". Among the reports: - Afghan father, son mistakenly killed while they slept during a 2013 raid, killed by Special Forces possibly accidentally. The shooters later apologized for the killing but avoided prosecution. - Afghan detainee was shot dead while he was alone with an Australian soldier, and others were mistreated. McBride notes that Special Forces turn a blind eye to "warrior culture" and misbehavior. McBride tried reporting what he knew up the chain but superiors didn't do anything about it: David McBride: > I think it was swept under the carpet. I eventually saw the police, they > didn't do anything about it. Finally, I saw the press, and it was > published on the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Company]. Former FBI agent, whistleblower, Coleen Rowley: > We've been at war since 9/11 for 18+ years. I think in times of war the > leaders lose sight of the law. The rule of law is a victim. There's an > interesting thing because David McBride, when he was a soldier, he swore > an oath to follow his duty as a soldier and of course he's fighting for > the rule of law. Same thing in the United States, when Chelsea Manning > and other soldiers and even other people like myself (formerly FBI in > the intelligence) we swore an oath to the Constitution -- to sustain the > Constitution -- which is the rule of law. And yet in times of war it > seems we revert back to this notion that there are kings and no matter > even if they commit murder, egregious crimes, war crimes, that everyone > has to stay quiet. Related: "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" (In times of war, the law falls silent) -- Cicero, Pro Milone. Also the title of a good episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the best of the numerous Star Trek series because it challenges so many ideas from the other series including what the Federation (a stand-in for the US heading up a unified Earth) would do when times get tough. Spoiler: The Federation's secret police (known as "Section 31") commits genocide against the enemy with no accountability. Venezuela: Venezuela helped poor Americans with free heating oil during the winters between 2005-2009 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scgsTsOUrBQ -- years old RT report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HqA02PaAYc -- Jimmy Dore commentary on the above report During the Obama administration Venezuela discounted heating oil for poor Americans, keeping them warm in the cold winter months. Obama cut federal programs that would have helped make heating oil affordable. The Chavez administration (via CITGO) instead helped the poor in the CITGO Venezuela heating oil program which started in 2005 after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Alice Maniotis spoke about her views of Chavez and Venezuelan people: > All I know is that he [Chavez] was kind, he was kind to the people of > the United States. And I'm sure he rules differently like Obama rules > differently, and who are we to tell these people how they should live? I > mean are they invading our country? But they're not. They're being > generous to give us what comes out of their earth at no charge. So could > you really have ill feelings against them? I'm thankful for it [the free > heating oil]. I really am. The heating oil program was suspended in 2009. Free speech: UK student seeks to have his college expulsion reversed citing the University's lack of freedom of speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nRn_Xszl3A -- UK student Felix Ngole says his expulsion from his Sheffield University social work course when he posted his views opposing homosexuality and opposing homosexual marriage to his personal Facebook page. From October 27, 2017 in https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/27/christian-felix-ngole-thrown-out-sheffield-university-anti-gay-remarks-loses-appeal > Ngole, 39, wrote during a debate on Facebook that “the Bible and God > identify homosexuality as a sin”, adding that “same-sex marriage is a > sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments > would not change His words.” > > He claimed that he was lawfully expressing a traditional Christian view > and complained that university bosses unfairly stopped him completing a > postgraduate degree. But after analysing rival claims at a trial in > London this month, the deputy high court judge, Rowena Collins Rice, > ruled against him. > > Ngole said his rights to freedom of speech and thought, enshrined in the > European convention on human rights, had been breached. His case was > backed by the Christian Legal Centre, part of the campaign group > Christian Concern. > > But lawyers representing the university argued that he showed “no > insight” and said the decision to remove him from the course was fair > and proportionate. Free speech: Jimmy Dore on Twitter "admission" is self-contradictory and misreads the 1st Amendment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0VyhwfwYMY -- Dore plays footage of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey claiming "Twitter is a right" and "these technologies" (presumably social media-related technology). Quote from Jimmy Dore's show citing what Dore played: > Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: ...otherwise everyone has a right to these > technologies and I think they also have a right to make sure that they > have a very simple and open read of the rules... > > Jimmy Dore: So if it's a right, if everyone has a right which is what he > just said -- I'm not putting words in his mouth, I'm not taking him out > of context -- he said it's a right and another thing is you have a right > to know what the rules are. Well if it's a right we already know what > the rules are: there's a thing called free speech in the United States. > We already know what the rules are, you don't have to make up new ones. > Why you're making up new ones is a mind-boggler to me because if it's a > right why do you think that you're allowed (you and your friends) you're > allowed to decide who has that right and you get to make up the rules. > We already have rules. What Dore doesn't understand is that Dorsey's commentary is just public relations. Twitter retains the power to censor as it wishes on its own service because the 1st Amendment doesn't protect Americans from censorship by private entities (per former ACLU president and author of "Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech and Not Censorship" Nadine Strossen in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xo9wu8Sskk which also covers that the term "hate speech" has not a legal term whereas "hate crime" or "bias crime" is): > Nadine Strossen: Unlike "hate speech", hate crime or bias crime is an > acceptable legal concept. And what it means is you take something that > would be a crime otherwise apart from its message -- your example of > throwing a brick [through the window of a synagogue on which is written > 'Hitler is great'] is property damage and probably assault as well. If > the government can show that that victim of the crime was singled out > for a discriminatory reason (such as race, religion, or so forth) then > it can be treated as a "hate crime" or "bias crime" and subject to a > stiffer penalty on the theory that it causes more harm to the victim and > to society. But I would be careful: in the United States even though the > Supreme Court has consistently struck down laws that punish speech based > on its hateful content -- and I have to stress the Supreme Court > justices across the entire ideological spectrum from left to right have > agreed that that is a bedrock principle of freedom of speech, we can't > punish it just because we despise the viewpoint. Nonetheless, like a lot > of human rights principles and civil liberties principles this one is > honored in the breech in many contexts: so we have many college campuses > that are enforcing "hate speech" codes. For all practical purposes, they > don't label them as such ever since the ACLU and FIRE and others have > successfully challenged every hate speech code. But under the guise of > the rules about "civility on campus" or very distorted exaggerated > concepts of harassment, racial and gender harassment, colleges are in > fact punishing ideas merely because they cause students to be or faculty > to be uncomfortable. Simply put, service users signed up for being arbitrarily restricted. They were each presented with and agreed to terms of service before they were given an account (and those terms included clauses that indicated the terms could change). Even if they hadn't so agreed, it's not at all clear that the service owner would lose their power to shadowban accounts, censor posts, end accounts, or cherry-pick which messages notified others via the service. It's unfortunate that the services don't support free speech but instead are responsive to punishing based on what people say; in this case social media giants are responsive to the Democratic Party. Some services have hassled account holders at the behest of Congressional committees pushing the Russiagate myth. But that's part of the cost of how the Internet is implemented right now: doing almost anything online involves routing a copy of one's data through privately-controlled services which have no clear obligation to convey one's messages to others. One recommendation: post the same messages on multiple services. Those that post their videos to only one service, for instance, YouTube, inherently gives that service power to censor their video to the point where it won't be seen. Posting to multiple services would require censorship coordination the likes of which we rarely see (a notable exception is how Alex Jones of Infowars was treated). Another principled choice to make: support everyone (without exception) who is censored. It doesn't matter what their messages are, what matters is that they weren't allowed to speak and be heard. Just as we have strong reason to defend freeing Julian Assange and recognize that WikiLeaks is a publisher (therefore any threat to him or WikiLeaks for publishing leaks is a threat to journalism and free speech nationally), we have reason to object to Alex Jones' being simultaneously kicked off of YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. Finally, look into using federated decentralized services instead of the single-point-of-censorship services (including Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc.). Mastodon, a program for hosting one's own Twitter-like service, is becoming more popular. Media: CNN chief Zucker doesn't like Fox News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAFmjZEJ2Y -- One calls the other propagandists. Oh, you two. Media: US media treats Venezuelan and Puerto Rican blackouts differently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4R2TkWewLg -- 25 hours into the Venezuelan blackout US. Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted: > The nationwide power failure in #Venezuela now going on its 25th hour is > causing devastating long term economic damage. In the blink of an eye > the countries entire aluminum production capacity was destroyed by > damage caused by the blackout. It wasn't long before he was reminded that Puerto Rico had a much longer blackout: Bernardo Canto: > Puerto Rico was out of power for 11 months you psychopath Which was the longest blackout in US history. Venezuela: Why did the power go out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvCq0_QybBU -- Venezuela gets help from China while power comes back on. Maduro says the US directly attacked Venezuela on orders from the Pentagon Southern Command in Miami via Houston and Chicago. The New York Times reported that US sanctions are partially responsible for the shortages that led to the power outage: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/world/americas/venezuela-blackout-power.html > The sanctions have affected Venezuela’s ability to import and produce > the fuel required by the thermal power plants that could have backed up > the Guri plant once it failed. Perhaps this electrical outage is part of a now long-described plan made real. WikiLeaks published a leaked email from 2010 (part of the 2012 Stratfor leak) from a group called "Canvas", described in RT's report as "a Serbian anti-communist regime change training group that has taken substantial amounts of money from the US government and actually trained many members of Juan Guaido's Will party" (the name of the political party is "Voluntad Popular" or "Popular Will"). The email was sent to someone at Stratfor which bills itself as a geopolitical intelligence platform and has connections to the US government. From https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=218642 > Date 2010-09-23 00:19:53 > From srkip at canvasopedia.org > To reva.bhalla at stratfor.com > > A key to Chavez's current weakness is the decline in the electricity > sector. There is the grave possibility that some 70 percent of the > country's electricity grid could go dark as soon as April 2010. Water > levels at the Guris dam are dropping, and Chavez has been unable to > reduce consumption sufficiently to compensate for the deteriorating > industry. This could be the watershed event, as there is little that > Chavez can do to protect the poor from the failure of that system. This > would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that > no opposition group could ever hope to generate. At that point in time, > an opposition group would be best served to take advantage of the > situation and spin it against Chavez and towards their needs. Alliances > with the military could be critical because in such a situation of > massive public unrest and rejection of the presidency, malcontent > sectors of the military will likely decide to intervene, but only if > they believe they have sufficient support. This has been the pattern in > the past three coup attempts. Where the military thought it had enough > support, there was a failure in the public to respond positively (or the > public responded in the negative), so the coup failed. Water: "One-fourth of Americans drink water from systems that don’t meet safety standards" https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/03/drinking-water-safety-in-united-sates-can-be-fixed/ -- "We can’t assume our water is safe to drink. But we can fix it. One-fourth of Americans drink water from systems that don’t meet safety standards." > Across the country, water systems are old, badly maintained, and in dire > need of modernizing—from lead service lines in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and > Newark, New Jersey, to silt and debris in drinking water after heavy > rain in Austin, Texas, to fecal contamination in Penn Township, > Pennsylvania. Worse, some are managed by dysfunctional agencies where > incompetence and socioeconomic and racial bias may determine whether a > community is made sick by its drinking water. The reality is that we can > no longer assume that our water is safe to drink. > > How unsafe is it? Depending on the source of contamination and the > exposure, health effects include neurological problems and developmental > disabilities in children (lead), interference with hormones > (perchlorates), and increased risk of cancers of the skin, bladder, and > kidney (arsenic). The Environmental Protection Agency regulates more > than 90 contaminants—but a hundred more that are tracked are so far > unregulated. Elections don't need computers and 1st Amendment violations, they need voter-verified recountability https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/13/8-ways-to-fix-americas-messed-up-presidential-elections/ -- Ted Rall's disappointing list of "8 Ways to Fix America's Messed-Up Presidential Elections" contains few ideas that are implementable, legal, and ethical but mostly consists of restrictions we cannot or should not pursue. If this were published just half a month later, I'd see this as an April Fools joke article but I got the impression that Rall's suggestions were offered sincerely: > First, take a step back: get rid of jungle primaries and open primaries. > Both of these newfangled experiments were marketed as ways to increase > voter turnout and encourage moderation. They don’t. > > In a jungle or open-participation primary like in California the top two > vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to a second final round. > Trouble is, both might be from the same party, disenfranchising the > other party’s voters during the general election. If one party’s > candidates split the vote, the minority party can win. Either scenario > depresses voter interest and participation. I'm not sure that parties "splitting the vote" is a problem we need to address so much as a problem for that party to deal with. However it also fails to address the reason why in 2016 the largest number of registered voters chose not to vote for any presidential candidate -- the candidates most likely to win (one of the two major corporate parties) were intensely disliked. The obvious means of addressing that is a binding none of the above vote: if a majority of people select this option a new slate of candidates is drawn up and all voters can vote again. > Second, amend Article II of the Constitution. The requirement that only > “natural born” citizens over age 35 may run for president ought to be > abolished. [...] Opening the presidency to talented young politicians > like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (age 29) would reduce the (accurate) > perception that top-tier U.S. politics is a hetero white male game. We have no evidence that identity politics is why most registered voters didn't vote for any candidate in 2016. Identity politics is the distraction the Democrats offer up to keep conversations away from talking about class. Ironically, identity politics is also the distraction Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez used for the majority of her recent interview with The Intercept. It's also a major reason why I found that interview to be a wasted opportunity and a journalistic disappointment. I'm surprised Rall doesn't see through what role identity politics played in the 2016 US election, particularly for someone astute enough to correctly identify what really happened in the 2016 Hillary DNC rally where Khizr Khan spoke in defense of the candidate whose support for the 2003 Iraq war killed his son: From https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-and-the-triumph-of-democratic-militarism/ > “If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America,” > Khizr Khan continued. The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. > Obviously, Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims is racist and disgusting. > Ironically, however, it would have saved at least one life. If it was up > to Donald Trump, the Khans would still be in the United Arab Emirates. > Humayan would still be alive. As would any Iraqis he killed. > > “Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?” asked Khizr, > who is originally from Pakistan. “I will gladly lend you my copy. In > this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of > law.” A good question. While we’re at it, however, where does it say in > the U.S. Constitution that the president can send troops overseas for > years at a time without a formal congressional declaration of war? Where > does it say that the United States can attack foreign countries that > have done it no harm and have never threatened it? But back to the election piece: > Fourth, level the campaign financing playing field. The Citizens United > Supreme Court decision that enshrined pay-to-play can be abolished with > the passage of a bill limiting or controlling outside donations. As with > food, France does it better: whereas top individual donors to Hillary > Clinton and Donald Trump gave more than $20 million each, the cap is > €7,500 in France. There are two rounds in French presidential elections. > Spending is severely restricted. “To help even out the playing field a > little between bigger and smaller parties, campaign expenses can’t > legally go over a certain threshold, €16.8 million for the first round, > and €22.5 million for the second round,” according to The Local. That’s > tiny compared to the $2.6 billion spent by Clinton and Trump in 2016. The problem with this remains the same as 'getting big money out of elections' -- if spending money is an expression of free speech, these restrictions sound illegal under the 1st Amendment. Instead we could grant free TV time to all ballot-qualified candidates: each candidate would receive 1 hour, gratis (free as in cost), commercial-free, and uninterrupted prime-time TV time slot on all stations broadcasting in the district in which the station plays a pre-recorded video. We'd make this a requirement conditioned on keeping the station's broadcast license. Ideally, any speech limits would be lifted for this hour so the candidate can say and show whatever they want. Since most campaigns spend most of their money on so-called "media buys" (advertising time in the media), this kind of coverage would save candidates some money. > Fifth, make voting simultaneous and easier. The major flaw with early > voting is, what if big campaign news—one of the candidates talking about > “grabbing their pussy,” say—breaks after you voted in October? It’s not > like you can take your vote back. Make Election Day a national holiday > (as it is in most developed countries) and let people vote on their > computers or smartphones. 89% of Americans use the Internet; two out of > three do their banking online. How great would it be if candidates’ > policy positions and detailed explanations of ballot initiatives could > be linked directly via an election app? Making Election Day a national holiday would be nice and sounds implementable without breaking extant law, but computerized voting is a horrible choice chiefly because it provides no means of supplying a voter-verified paper ballot. Voter-verified paper ballots give the public a record of votes which can be recounted by hand if necessary. The entire system of using and collecting voter-verified paper ballots can be done without computers and thus can be made to avoid large-scale fraud which is rather easily pulled off with computerized voting[1]. Banking is not like voting. Voting requires collecting a lot of information from a lot of people where one has no idea how the voters voted. It's not possible to look at a computer record and know that each record reflects the will of that voter. Banking involves verifiable transactions where the account holder can do error checking with receipts and other records of transactions (credit card statements, bills, etc.). So voting means largely dealing with a lot of unknown data whereas banking (at least one's personal banking account) involves a lot of knowable data. [1] My 2004 article https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/08/19/why-we-need-quot-free-software-quot-voting-machines/ has more on this and why we need free software (software we are free to run, inspect, share, and modify) voting machines. > Sixth, and most likely to be controversial, is my list of American > citizens who should not be permitted to run for president. > > If you’re an incumbent officeholder, you should not run. [...] If you > cannot pass a simple test about the U.S. and its political system, you > should not be allowed to run. [...] Ten questions, you must correctly > answer seven. [...] If you own investments in a business, stock or other > investments, or hold office in a company, you should not present > yourself as a candidate for the presidency. [...] If a close family > member by blood or marriage served as president or vice president, you > should not run. It's illegal to make someone passing a test to use their voting rights (see the Voting Rights Act), so how would a test to run for office fare if challenged in court? -J From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 14 12:53:31 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:53:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Intercept and AOC at South by Southwest 2019: Waste of opportunity, waste of time References: <85a7b48f-a491-c1e4-bc74-cfecfa46d434@forestfield.org> Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "J.B. Nicholson" > Subject: The Intercept and AOC at South by Southwest 2019: Waste of opportunity, waste of time > Date: March 12, 2019 at 9:46:14 PM CDT > To: "C. G. Estabrook" > > I just watched The Intercept's Senior Politics Editor Briahna Gray interviewed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) for 1h17 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU-SE5eNt04 and it was a complete waste of my time. Maybe there will be a transcript at https://theintercept.com/2019/03/09/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-sxsw/ someday. I'm losing more interest in The Intercept as there are so few people there now who write or give indications of thinking with appropriate priorities, particularly when speaking about or to people in power. > > Here's the highlight of the interview: > >> AOC: Wages have stayed flat for 30 years, our nation is being more >> productive and more healthy as a whole than ever before but that wealth >> is being enjoyed by a very small amount of people. And the reason for it >> is not systemic inequality, or runaway hyper-capitalism, or the fact >> that we've taken away all the guardrails of a responsible society, the >> reason is Mexicans. You know? And that's the reason. > But that comes early and that's it. This entire hour+ talk doesn't get better than that, it gets considerably worse. > > There was very little followup to this in the form of specific policy recommendations -- instead of Gray asking AOC about specific Medicare for All bills she supports and why, instead of Gray asking AOC about a national jobs program bill, instead of challenging AOC promise to support anything in particular we get identity politics that eats up most of the remaining time. > > Here are some of the lowlights, as it were: > > - Zero mention of war. The Intercept should be ashamed to let the single largest ethical and budgetary issue go unmentioned when discussing anything with a Congressmember. This alone makes this entire interview a non-starter. I suspect that this is no accident like how Sanders' foreign policy is either non-existent or poor (see his and AOC's reaction to US-AID in Venezuela, for example). > > - "intersectionalism" gets mentioned but never defined or explained how distracting it is when we could be having discussions about class. > > - no examination of how class politics does a better job than race does in explaining where most Americans are economically (poorer than they were with an ever-widening gap between rich and poor). Plenty of affirming (sans evidence) that what Americans face today is "inextricably linked" to race with no clarification on what that meant. > > - 2m30s: AOC: "Women like me aren't supposed to run for office"..."let alone win": AOC won in part because the Congressman who represented her district didn't try to keep his seat. That's fortunate for her but is hard to discern for her district. AOC's voting record has yet to be established. She hasn't had a chance to vote on a number of issues of significance yet. So we don't know if what she's claiming here is true: we don't know that her being a woman is at all significant (except in the Democratic Party where identity politics is apparently a campaign plank in itself), we don't know that she will challenge the establishment on issues of importance. > > - 5m50s: AOC said: > >> AOC: It's been very interesting to see how subtle these [pro-oil/corporate] influences make their way and that is what makes them powerful... > That's quite a claim but AOC gives no examples of what she's talking about and Gray asks no followup questions to clarify or get AOC to be specific. > > - a number of rambles eventually leading to a question and unsourced claims including: > >> Briahna Joy Gray: There was a lot of conversation in 2016 about how >> irresponsible or naive it was to pursue some of these big ticket items >> [such as climate change] and not a lot of conversation about the >> privilege that it takes to say "Well, we'll deal with this in the next >> generation". I do want to connect this back a little bit more to the >> issues involving race. Because while I think that there is a great deal >> of popularity, these programs are -- poll after poll shows >> overwhelmingly popular -- there is this emergent narrative that says >> that these kinds of New Deal-style universal programs are not for >> diverse communities and there's a lot of skepticism that I think is >> understandable among certain non-white communities that says "Well, >> these programs were floated before and they did a lot to fix a lot of >> people in America but they systematically cut out us". We weren't able >> to take advantage of them in the same way and they had the effect of >> widening the wealth gap and other kinds of gaps. So how do we connect >> the utility of these kinds of New Deal programs to communities that feel >> that they have been insufficiently served by them in the past? > The central claim is vague (which "universal programs"? What are the claims specifically?) so it's hard to respond in a specific way. There's also no source given for the alleged skepticism. Besides the Americans that run HMOs, which Americans object to a proper Medicare for All rollout? Which Americans object after learning that we're already paying more for health care delivery than a proper Medicare for All system would cost? Which Americans look at how health care delivery is arranged in other wealthy countries and conclude that the US system is the right way to go? > > Redlining is brought up, but nothing in the discussion gives the impression that either Gray or AOC have a point to make with, say, Medicare for All eliminating co-pays or helping the nation collectively negotiate for lower drug prices -- both practical issues that can help the poor regardless of race. > > -J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Thu Mar 14 12:59:40 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:59:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Boeing 737 Max 8 References: <1288886061.4385146.1552568380854.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1288886061.4385146.1552568380854@mail.yahoo.com> Yesterday on Democracy Now Ralph Nader spoke of the sad news of the tragic death of his grandniece, granddaughter of his sister, one of the 157 who perished in the Ethiopian plane crash of Boeing's 737 Max 8/9.  She was on a health care mission in Africa representing her company on her first assignment of her new job after graduating from Amherst.  Nader called for the immediate grounding of the new Boeing 737 (unsafe at any speed) which as of that time before Pres. Trump was persuaded to make the call was grounded in most other countries except USA.  Nader recommends that people should refuse to fly on Boeing 737 Max planes.  How ironic it took another tragic plane crash to affect the family of our foremost consumer safety advocate and founder of Public Citizen . I was reminded of a scary incident related by my brother, a TWA pilot  for 25 years who on his last flight before retirement was flying an old 707 charter carrying a soccer team to Los Angeles, when he couldn't get the landing gear lowered before approaching the airport.  He manually cranked the landing assembly in effort to engage the landing gear without success, repeated cranking until finally to their great relief was able to lower the wheels to safely land the plane.  That was more than 20 years ago before high tech and A.I. which now dominates the mechanics of the new "smart" aircraft that some pilots are not properly trained to operate in order to manually override computer-controlled automatic pilot, which complaints indicate is a design flaw.  Midge O'Brien  -----Original Message----- From: Robert Weissman, Public Citizen To: Midge O'Brien Sent: Wed, Mar 13, 2019 1:42 pm Subject: Boeing 737 Max 8 @media screen and (max-width:415px){#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-small-12 {max-width:100% !important;width:100% !important;}#yiv6572880609 #yiv6572880609sli-background {background-color:transparent !important;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-logo img {width:80% !important;min-width:200px !important;}} #yiv6572880609 #yiv6572880609sli {max-width:800px;margin:0px auto;background-color:#ffffff;padding:0em;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-element, #yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-element td, #yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-email-element, #yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-email-element td {font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:#222222;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-element a, #yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-email-element a, #yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-unsubscribe a {}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609button, #yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609email-button {background:rgb(61, 188, 169);color:rgb(255, 255, 255);border-color:#222222;border-radius:0px;border-width:0px;border-style:none;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609sli-divider {background:none;border-bottom:1px solid #FFA500;min-height:1px;width:100%;margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609outer {max-width:800px;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609three-column .yiv6572880609column {max-width:266px;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609two-column .yiv6572880609column {max-width:400px;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609webkit {max-width:800px;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609callout {background-color:#FFA500;border-color:#222222;border-radius:0px;border-width:0px;border-style:none;padding:1em;}#yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609callout, #yiv6572880609 .yiv6572880609callout-without-border-bg {color:#222222;}#yiv6572880609 img {max-width:100%;}#yiv6572880609 #yiv6572880609sli-background {background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);} | | | | | | | | | | | | Midge, Two Boeing 737 Max 8 planes have crashed in recent months — killing hundreds. As a result, these planes are now grounded nearly everywhere in the world — except the United States. Tell Boeing, the Federal Aviation Administration, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines to ground these planes immediately. Sign the petition now. These planes cannot be permitted to fly until their safety issues are identified and resolved. In the days since the crash of the Ethiopian Airlines flight, a lot of information has emerged suggesting Boeing and regulators should have acted earlier on specific safety issues — and that earlier action could have saved the lives of the 157 human beings killed. In the days and weeks ahead, a lot more information is going to emerge, and we'll know a lot more. But we have all the information we need to know that letting the Boeing 737 Max 8 planes continue to fly is reckless and inviting another tragedy. Tell Boeing, federal regulators and the airlines to ground Boeing 737 Max 8 planes right now. This is just a matter of common sense. There are broader lessons here about regulatory failure, industry capture and more. But for right now, the imperative is: Ground these planes. Onward, Robert Weissman President, Public Citizen | | | | | | | Follow Us on Social Media | | | | | | | Public Citizen 1600 20th Street NW    Washington, District of Columbia 20009 | | | | Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser | | | | | | | Manage Subscription | | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Thu Mar 14 15:24:50 2019 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 10:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Boeing 737 Max 8 In-Reply-To: <1288886061.4385146.1552568380854@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1288886061.4385146.1552568380854.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1288886061.4385146.1552568380854@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As for these planes, it sounds as though the FAA has finally agreed to ground them here too.   Maybe Boeing believed Nader's comments about their executives being criminally responsible for the next crash if they let the planes continue to fly, and asked the FAA to go ahead and ground them. Back in February, on the Risks Digest - an e-mail list for all sorts of technological/societal risks, from air safety to mass surveillance to plastics pollution to synthetic videos that look real - there was discussion of the Lion Air crash.  It included a link to discussion by a bunch of aircraft people of how the new Boeing aircraft had adopted this aggressive stall-preventing behavior (forcing the nose down) if it thought the plane was flying too slowly.   Some stall prevention was needed, because of the plane's new design which gave it bigger engines and more capacity -- a desirable thing -- but made it less stable than previous designs. The most critical problems people were identifying:     - It was engineered to judge an impending stall based on the results from just a single sensor.   Sensors should be redundant - a single sensor can easily give false data (and have caused crashes in the past, as when a French plane went down over the ocean when its airspeed sensor got coated with ice.)     - Worse, the new stall prevention system was not described to the pilots in their training - so when it started to misbehave and told the plane to dive, they wouldn't have known why.     - The pilots were given a way to override the stall prevention system - a switch could turn it off - but that only helps them if they know to use it. All this was clear after the *first* accident. > Andy Pasztor and Andrew Tangel, *The Wall Street Journal*, 10 Feb 2019 > Boeing and Regulators Delay Jetliner Fixes Prompted by Lion Air Crash > Software update, initially expected in January, now likely pushed > until April or later [PGN-truncated for RISKS] > https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-and-regulators-delay-jetliner-fixes-prompted-by-lion-air-crash-11549821489 > https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/618252-boeing-737-max-software-fixes-due-lion-air-crash-delayed.html On 3/14/19 7:59 AM, Mildred O'brien via Peace-discuss wrote: > Yesterday on Democracy Now Ralph Nader spoke of the sad news of the > tragic death of his grandniece, granddaughter of his sister, one of > the 157 who perished in the Ethiopian plane crash of Boeing's 737 Max > 8/9.  She was on a health care mission in Africa representing her > company on her first assignment of her new job after graduating from > Amherst.  Nader called for the immediate grounding of the new Boeing > 737 (unsafe at any speed) which as of that time before Pres. Trump was > persuaded to make the call was grounded in most other countries except > USA.  Nader recommends that people should refuse to fly on Boeing 737 > Max planes.  How ironic it took another tragic plane crash to affect > the family of our foremost consumer safety advocate and founder of > Public Citizen . > > I was reminded of a scary incident related by my brother, a TWA pilot  > for 25 years who on his last flight before retirement was flying an > old 707 charter carrying a soccer team to Los Angeles, when he > couldn't get the landing gear lowered before approaching the airport.  > He manually cranked the landing assembly in effort to engage the > landing gear without success, repeated cranking until finally to their > great relief was able to lower the wheels to safely land the plane.  > That was more than 20 years ago before high tech and A.I. which now > dominates the mechanics of the new "smart" aircraft that some pilots > are not properly trained to operate in order to manually override > computer-controlled automatic pilot, which complaints indicate is a > design flaw.  > > Midge O'Brien  > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Weissman, Public Citizen > To: Midge O'Brien > Sent: Wed, Mar 13, 2019 1:42 pm > Subject: Boeing 737 Max 8 > > Public Citizen logo > > Midge, > > Two Boeing 737 Max 8 planes have crashed in recent months — killing > hundreds. > > *As a result, these planes are now grounded nearly everywhere in the > world *— *except the United States.* > > Tell Boeing, the Federal Aviation Administration, American Airlines > and Southwest Airlines to ground these planes immediately. > > Sign the petition now. > > > > These planes cannot be permitted to fly until their safety issues are > identified and resolved. > > > > In the days since the crash of the Ethiopian Airlines flight, a lot of > information has emerged suggesting Boeing and regulators should have > acted earlier on specific safety issues — and that earlier action > could have saved the lives of the 157 human beings killed. > > In the days and weeks ahead, a lot more information is going to > emerge, and we'll know a lot more. > > *But we have all the information we need to know that letting the > Boeing 737 Max 8 planes continue to fly is reckless and inviting > another tragedy.* > > Tell Boeing, federal regulators and the airlines to ground Boeing 737 > Max 8 planes right now. > > > > This is just a matter of common sense. > > > > There are broader lessons here about regulatory failure, industry > capture and more. > > *But for right now, the imperative is: Ground these planes.* > > Onward, > > Robert Weissman > President, Public Citizen > > *Follow Us on Social Media* > > > > > > *Public Citizen* > 1600 20th Street NW   >  Washington, District of Columbia 20009 > > Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser > > > Manage Subscription > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 14 19:23:36 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:23:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Antisemitism pandemic Message-ID: https://xenagoguevicene.com/2019/03/13/anti-semitism-pandemic-by-c-j-hopkins-consent-factory-11-march-2019/ 'This sudden anti-Semitism outbreak has nothing to do with the War on Populism that the global capitalist ruling classes have been waging for the last two years. It’s not like the establishment would stoop so low as to use anti-Semitism (and even the Holocaust!) as a cynical propaganda ploy to delegitimize their myriad opponents and critics. No, it’s much more believable that an idiopathic, worldwide anti-Semitism pandemic erupted, for no apparent reason, precisely as the capitalist ruling classes were beginning to suspect that they had a widespread “populist” insurgency on their hands.’ ### From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Mar 14 20:57:21 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:57:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: April 4th is for Peace In-Reply-To: <5c8a93b176862_5bee3fc1e0534968121796ab@ip-10-0-0-119.mail> References: <5c8a93b176862_5bee3fc1e0534968121796ab@ip-10-0-0-119.mail> Message-ID: ________________________________ From: World BEYOND War Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 12:47 PM To: Szoke, Ron Subject: April 4th is for Peace [https://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/wbwnosub300.jpg] [https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/267/741/original/notonatosign2.png]Trump has pressured most NATO members into spending more on war. Trump and Congress have greedily moved even more money out of just about everything else and into war. NATO has declared itself ready for lots more wars. It's even added Colombia as a partner, betraying the global ambitions of the biggest military force the world has ever seen. NATO accounts for 3/4 of military spending, and 3/4 of foreign weapons dealing (you have to have something to fight against!). Congress has invited the head of NATO to speak to it on April 3, just before the foreign ministers of NATO nations celebrate their militarism in Washington on April 4. We have planned, instead, a rally for peace, and for the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who spoke against war on April 4 and was assassinated on April 4. We've planned a peace festival for April 3 and a rally for peace on April 4. Events begin with a rally on March 30 and continue through the week. Learn more and sign up to take part in the festivities at notoNATO.org! World BEYOND War is a global network of volunteers, activists, and allied organizations advocating for the abolition of the very institution of war. Our success is driven by a people-powered movement – support our work for a culture of peace. [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/wbwpledgelink.jpg] [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/eventsbutton.jpg] [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/shop.jpg] [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/donatebutton.jpg] [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/newsbutton.jpg] [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/fb.jpg] [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/twit.jpg] [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/youtubeicon.jpg] World BEYOND War 513 E Main St #1484 Charlottesville, VA 22902 USA Privacy policy. Checks must be made out to "World BEYOND War / AFGJ" or we can't deposit them. Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from World Beyond War, please click here. From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 14 23:27:21 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:27:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SPLC fires co-founder Morris Dees Message-ID: <5FE56F4D-1A56-4E0C-9B57-34C1919C53D1@gmail.com> https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/03/14/southern-poverty-law-center-fires-co-founder-civil-rights-lawyer-morris-dees/3164839002/ [Jeffrey St Clair] After decades of grifting, self-promotion, hypocrisy and hate-shaming (well documented in CounterPunch over the years by Ken, Alex and yours truly), the SPLC finally got around to firing Morris Dees… ### From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Fri Mar 15 09:44:10 2019 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 04:44:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] we are all connected Message-ID: Environmental damage that would accrue if White House budget were to be implemented: https://www.audubon.org/news/audubon-birds-and-people-would-suffer-under-white-house-budget-proposal?ms=policy-adv-email-ea-x-advocacy_20190312_advisory&utm_source=ea&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=advocacy_20190312_advisory Deb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Fri Mar 15 13:40:30 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:40:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ralph Nader on Democracy Now References: <1784514987.4983125.1552657230103.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1784514987.4983125.1552657230103@mail.yahoo.com> Karen:  Thanks for referencing this DN program; I haven't learned how to copy websites to email.   Saturday nights 9-10 pm WILL AM radio (580 MHz) for years has broadcast Alternative Radio, an hour of David Barsamian's re-broadcasts of left political commentaries.  Last Sat night (March 9) Dana Frank, prof. (of history I think) at U. Cal. Santa Clara talked on the subject of the Honduran situation forcing emigration of so many Hondurans from great hardship and threat of violence, which she has first hand knowledge of U.S. intervention there and in other Latin Am nations.  It was an excellent presentation but she talked so fast in order to discuss so many facts in the allotted hour that it was hard to follow everything she said.  It would be good to read a transcript (available for $15 from AR, alternativeradio.org) if anyone is interested.  Every Saturday night AR plays a recording of a different speaker, usually to an academic audience.  Midge -----Original Message-----om: Karen Aram To: David Green ; C G Estabrook ; Brussel, Morton K ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Sent: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 10:26 am Subject: Ralph Nader on Democracy Now; https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/13/ralph_naders_grandniece_died_in_ethiopian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Mar 15 23:11:04 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 18:11:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #414 notes Message-ID: News from Neptune #414 A "State Terrorism" edition Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHTGDKAbiPo A list of links to items featured on the show. Redline (rdln.wordpress.com) on "The massacre in Christchurch: individual terrorism was nurtured by state terrorism" https://rdln.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/the-massacre-in-christchurch-individual-terrorism-was-nurtured-by-state-terrorism/ From https://rdln.wordpress.com/about-redline/ about Redline -- rdln.wordpress.com The blog editorial collective are: Don Franks, Philip Ferguson, Daphna Whitmore, Mark Muller, Nick Scullin, Tim Leadbeater, Colin Clarke, Susanne Kemp Background on 2019 Christchurch killing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrNZDJsJyc -- Mosques shooting, multiple people killed in Christchurch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qRvmRLrCfQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1pUjXlSqgY -- New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern on deadly attack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c22EzAXX3L4 -- New Zealand police commissioner on attack Kathleen Belew's "Bring the War Home" ISBN: 9780674286078 2018-07-24 Belew interview on Democracy Now: https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/24/bring_the_war_home_the_long Thomas Friedman on "Whom to Elect for a Foreign Policy Crisis at 3 A.M.?" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/opinion/foreign-policy-crisis-democrats-2020.html Rep. Ilhan Omar on Pres. Obama in Politico https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/08/ilhan-omar-dean-phillips-minnesota-democratic-party-225696 -- article https://www.rt.com/usa/453372-omar-barack-obama-murder/ -- RT coverage including links to reactions https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1104059027997294593 -- Ben Norton on Omar's Politico article. J.B. Nicholson on "Is Tulsi Gabbard really anti-war? No, she’s pro-drone and for “surgical strikes”." https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ Anya Parampil on "Ricardo Hausmann’s “Morning After” for Venezuela: The Neoliberal Brain Behind Juan Guaido’s Economic Agenda" https://www.mintpressnews.com/ricardo-hausmann-morning-venezuela-neoliberal-brain-behind-juan-guaidos-economic-agenda/256185/ Costas Lapavitsas interview on The Real News Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh65ee5U9Kk Transcript: https://therealnews.com/stories/class-struggle-over-brexit-lapavitsas-and-jay Related: 2-part "The Left Case Against the EU", Costas Lapavitsas interviewed by Sharmini Peries on The Real News: Part 1 of 2 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haps9anpCgQ Transcript: https://therealnews.com/stories/the-left-case-against-the-eu-1-2 Part 2 of 2 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uya4pV8Tkb4 Transcript: https://therealnews.com/stories/the-left-case-against-the-eu-2-2 I couldn't find the referenced News-Gazette letter to the editor from Lisa Micelli (perhaps it's not yet online for all to read but will be later?). There are related articles about locals who are alleged to be a part of the 2019 college admissions scandal Ben Zigterman on "First Busey board member among those charged in college-admissions bribery scheme" http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2019-03-13/first-busey-board-member-among-those-charged-college-admissions-bribery-scheme Ben Zigterman on "Others in C-U used company at center of college-admissions scandal" http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2019-03-15/others-c-u-used-company-center-college-admissions-scandal.html From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 01:16:01 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 20:16:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> Message-ID: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. —CGE > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: > > Ian Welsh > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. > > Why would they want to? > > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. > > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. > > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. > > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 01:59:02 2019 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 18:59:02 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> Message-ID: Precisely, what is Nuremberg's definition - I doubt you have ever read it! On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American > president would have been hanged." > > The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump > should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s > defintion. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh > wrote: > > > > Ian Welsh > > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > > > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something > so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go > down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > > > > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George > Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her > record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be > pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted > by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs > include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers > (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > > > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of > the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but > impeachment is certainly possible. > > > > Why would they want to? > > > > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the > impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, > except by executive fiat. > > > > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of > news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and > cruel thing that Trump has done. > > > > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a > lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the > Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your > legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > > > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for > months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend > months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > > > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see > legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. > Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if > working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > > > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, > crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, > impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > > > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very > least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being > President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put > everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly > profiting from his Presidency. > > > > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, > Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex > is a ridiculously low bar.) > > > > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of > making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope > I’m wrong. > > > > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food > isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > > > > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > > > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email > delivery powered by Google > > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 02:07:53 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:07:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for the Ides of March Message-ID: <5A1D7357-31A8-4381-8762-F3E473CC4817@gmail.com> https://www.facebook.com/News-from-Neptune-92629477988/notifications/?section=activity_feed&subsection=mention From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 02:58:09 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:58:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> Message-ID: <5675AC22-F215-48F2-902D-22E609B1609B@gmail.com> Oh, Roger, you’re so untrusting. See . "The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole… —CGE > On Mar 15, 2019, at 8:59 PM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > Precisely, what is Nuremberg's definition - I doubt you have ever read it! > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." > > The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: > > > > Ian Welsh > > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > > > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > > > > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > > > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. > > > > Why would they want to? > > > > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. > > > > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > > > > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > > > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > > > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > > > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > > > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. > > > > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > > > > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. > > > > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > > > > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > > > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google > > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Mar 16 13:09:32 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 08:09:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> Message-ID: Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. See here: Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American > president would have been hanged." > > The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump > should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s > defintion. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh > wrote: > > > > Ian Welsh > > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > > > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something > so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go > down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > > > > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George > Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her > record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be > pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted > by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs > include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers > (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > > > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of > the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but > impeachment is certainly possible. > > > > Why would they want to? > > > > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the > impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, > except by executive fiat. > > > > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of > news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and > cruel thing that Trump has done. > > > > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a > lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the > Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your > legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > > > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for > months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend > months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > > > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see > legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. > Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if > working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > > > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, > crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, > impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > > > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very > least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being > President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put > everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly > profiting from his Presidency. > > > > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, > Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex > is a ridiculously low bar.) > > > > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of > making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope > I’m wrong. > > > > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food > isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > > > > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > > > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email > delivery powered by Google > > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Mar 16 14:37:37 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 09:37:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> Message-ID: <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. See here: Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. —CGE > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh > wrote: > > Ian Welsh > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. > > Why would they want to? > > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. > > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. > > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. > > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States _______________________________________________ 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Mar 16 15:10:58 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 10:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an *intifada*, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > > > > Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party > had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to > cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the > very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, > impeachment is off the table “. > > > > She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and > CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate > campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a > difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. > > > > David J. > > > > *From:* Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On > Behalf Of *Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > *Sent:* Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > *To:* C G Estabrook > *Cc:* Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > > > > > Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > > > > IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > > > > Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A > resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, > JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN > UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor > insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > > > > See here: > > > > Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > > https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > > > > === > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American > president would have been hanged." > > The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump > should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s > defintion. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh > wrote: > > > > Ian Welsh > > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > > > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something > so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go > down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > > > > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George > Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her > record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be > pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted > by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs > include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers > (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > > > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of > the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but > impeachment is certainly possible. > > > > Why would they want to? > > > > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the > impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, > except by executive fiat. > > > > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of > news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and > cruel thing that Trump has done. > > > > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a > lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the > Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your > legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > > > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for > months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend > months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > > > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see > legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. > Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if > working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > > > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, > crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, > impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > > > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very > least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being > President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put > everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly > profiting from his Presidency. > > > > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, > Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex > is a ridiculously low bar.) > > > > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of > making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope > I’m wrong. > > > > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food > isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > > > > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > > > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email > delivery powered by Google > > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 15:46:55 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 10:46:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> Message-ID: An impeachment campaign is worthwhile only if it would interfere with US war-making around the world, and it probably wouldn’t. Even if it’s successful, a Pence administration would be at least as belligerent as the current one. The US war in SE Asia ended not because of anything the Congress or the executive did, but because the US military in Vietnam revolted, and that occurred because by 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. That’s our only recent model for ending US war-making. Impeaching Trump is a distraction - and often not an innocent one. —CGE > On Mar 16, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > > But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > > Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. > > But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. > > And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > > > > Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. > > > > She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. > > > > David J. > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > > > > > Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > > > > IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > > > > Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > > > > See here: > > > > Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > > https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." > > The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: > > > > Ian Welsh > > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > > > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > > > > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > > > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. > > > > Why would they want to? > > > > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. > > > > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > > > > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > > > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > > > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > > > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > > > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. > > > > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > > > > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. > > > > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > > > > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > > > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google > > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Mar 16 16:18:47 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:18:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> Message-ID: "Impeachment" does not equal "removal from office." Impeachment is something the House does. Removal from office is something the Senate does. The House impeached Bill Clinton. The Senate failed to remove Bill Clinton from office. I addressed this in my piece, see the link. Impeaching Trump is unlikely to remove Trump from office, because a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove Trump from office is extremely unlikely. It would require eight more Republicans to vote for removing Trump from office than voted against Trump's emergency declaration about the wall. So Pence is not an argument against impeaching Trump. Whether trying to impeach Trump would help end the wars and prevent new ones is an open question which I think should be explored. I believe that it would. It would undermine his legitimacy and authority. And, if it's done against the will of Nancy Pelosi, it would undermine her legitimacy and authority. Those are the two most important people in the United States whose legitimacy and authority need to be undermined right now, in order to end and prevent wars. In addition, trying to impeach Trump is more likely to help end and prevent wars if the impeachment is explicitly linked to ending a war. And that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to explicitly link impeachment to ending the war in Yemen. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:47 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > An impeachment campaign is worthwhile only if it would interfere with US > war-making around the world, and it probably wouldn’t. > > Even if it’s successful, a Pence administration would be at least as > belligerent as the current one. > > The US war in SE Asia ended not because of anything the Congress or the > executive did, but because the US military in Vietnam revolted, and that > occurred because by 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war > as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result > of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass > opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop > the escalation of the war. > > That’s our only recent model for ending US war-making. Impeaching Trump is > a distraction - and often not an innocent one. —CGE > > > > On Mar 16, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing > is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her > political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], > which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > > > > But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, > psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that > they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is > not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work > effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - > like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule > over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is > potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House > Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The > moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The > Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC > doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are > catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear > dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. > A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that > ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So > she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real > fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > > > > Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the > AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected > Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a > confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and > Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi > and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork > in it, it's done. > > > > But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was > an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for > Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing > singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have > a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be > against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out > Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the > uprising. > > > > And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can > try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule > over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the > wars and prevent new ones. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > > > > > > > > Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic > party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched > live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the > podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off > the table, impeachment is off the table “. > > > > > > > > She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and > CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate > campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a > difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. > > > > > > > > David J. > > > > > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] > On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > > To: C G Estabrook > > Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > > > > > > > > IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > > > > > > > > Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A > resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, > JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN > UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor > insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > > > > > > > > See here: > > > > > > > > Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > > > > https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American > president would have been hanged." > > > > The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump > should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s > defintion. > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh > wrote: > > > > > > Ian Welsh > > > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > > > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > > > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > > > > > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s > something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we > should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not > worth it. > > > > > > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George > Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her > record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be > pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted > by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs > include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers > (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > > > > > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control > of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but > impeachment is certainly possible. > > > > > > Why would they want to? > > > > > > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of > the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, > except by executive fiat. > > > > > > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of > news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and > cruel thing that Trump has done. > > > > > > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t > a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the > Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your > legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > > > > > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for > months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend > months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > > > > > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to > see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for > decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly > can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > > > > > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, > crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, > impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > > > > > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very > least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being > President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put > everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly > profiting from his Presidency. > > > > > > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. > Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about > consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > > > > > > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of > making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope > I’m wrong. > > > > > > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food > isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > > > > > > > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > > > > > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > > > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email > delivery powered by Google > > > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United > States > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 16 18:36:37 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 18:36:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] They did it, ANSWER/PSL in DC today, thousands.. References: Message-ID: Until the moderator approves the VDO below to the masses in Champaign, totally unaware of what is happening now in DC, please perhaps one of you can forward it to the Peace List. Begin forwarded message: From: > Subject: Your message to Peace awaits moderator approval Date: March 16, 2019 at 11:29:14 PDT To: > Your mail to 'Peace' with the subject They did it, ANSWER/PSL in DC today, thousands. Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message has a suspicious header Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel this posting, please visit the following URL: https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/confirm/peace/f7ca192ecacb7afc0e37e5dc0b92fe4ec28d5af1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Mar 16 20:54:04 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 15:54:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> Bob, That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! David J. From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM To: David Johnson Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. See here: Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. —CGE > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh > wrote: > > Ian Welsh > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. > > Why would they want to? > > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. > > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. > > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. > > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Mar 16 20:58:06 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 15:58:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'This Is Historic': US Senate Passes War Powers Resolution to End Complicity in World's Worst Humanitarian Crisis Message-ID: <00e101d4dc3a$f4d37660$de7a6320$@comcast.net> 'This Is Historic': US Senate Passes War Powers Resolution to End Complicity in World's Worst Humanitarian Crisis By: Jake Johnson | March 13, 2019 'This Is Historic': US Senate Passes War Powers Resolution to End Complicity in World's Worst Humanitarian Crisis Facebook Twitter Reddit Email "This Senate vote moves us one step closer to ending U.S. support for the catastrophic war in Yemen, a war that makes America complicit in the worst humanitarian crisis in the world," Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement. (Image: Win Without War) In a major step toward ending U.S. complicity in the world's worst humanitarian crisis, the Senate on Wednesday passed a War Powers resolution to cut off American military support for the Saudi-led coalition's assault on Yemen. The final vote count was 54-46. "This is historic. For the first time in 45 years, Congress is one step closer to withdrawing U.S. forces from an unauthorized war," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of the resolution, declared following the vote. "We must end the war in Yemen." Kate Gould, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, applauded the grassroots activists who have been working tirelessly to end America's disastrous role in Yemen. "The Senate has now taken a decisive step in ending the American facilitation of the Yemen war and the world's largest humanitarian crises," Gould said. "Millions of grassroots activists, who helped make this vote a reality, want their lawmakers to end this unconscionable war." Passage of the resolution comes as the Saudis continue to launch deadly airstrikes in Yemen with U.S. backing, worsening a crisis that has already resulted in mass suffering and tens of thousands of deaths. Earlier this week, dozens of civilians-including women and young children-were killed by Saudi airstrikes in Yemen's Kushar district. According to the United Nations, 14 million Yemenis could soon be on the brink of starvation if the bombing continues. Save the Children, a London-based human rights organization, estimated in a report last November that 85,000 Yemenis under the age of five have starved to death since the Saudi-led coalition began bombing the country. "The fact is that the United States, with little media attention, has been Saudi Arabia's partner in this horrific war. We have been providing the bombs the Saudi-led coalition is using, refueling their planes before they drop those bombs and assisting with intelligence," Sanders said during a speech on the Senate floor ahead of the vote. "The bottom line is the United States should not be supporting a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and irresponsible foreign policy." Watch the full speech: "This Senate vote moves us one step closer to ending U.S. support for the catastrophic war in Yemen, a war that makes America complicit in the worst humanitarian crisis in the world," Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement. In addition to putting an end to America's role in the slaughter of Yemeni civilians, supporters said the resolution also reasserst Congress' constitutional authority over war. "Congressional authority over war was designed to avoid the type of situation that's been unfolding in Yemen, where unauthorized U.S. military support began without public debate or scrutiny," Martin said. "The Senate's vote to end the U.S. role in Yemen is also a vote to re-democratize our nation's foreign policy." The Yemen War Powers resolution will now head back to the House of Representatives, the final roadblock before the measure reaches President Donald Trump's desk. In a statement before Wednesday's vote, the White House said it "strongly opposes" the resolution and suggested Trump will veto the measure if it passes the House. A two-thirds majority vote by both chambers of Congress would be needed to override a possible Trump veto. "Ending U.S. support will put even more pressure on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to change their tactics and finally negotiate an end to the war," Martin concluded. "Now that the new Senate has passed the resolution, the House needs to pass the same clean version of the resolution to finally send it to the president's desk." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 370128 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 17:11:39 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 12:11:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to spend time doing so. Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will continue. But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. —CGE > On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > Bob, > > That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! > > David J. > > From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > > Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > > But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > > Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. > > But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. > > And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; >> >> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. >> >> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. >> >> David J. >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM >> To: C G Estabrook >> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment >> >> >> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. >> >> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. >> >> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. >> >> See here: >> >> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 >> >> === >> >> Robert Reuel Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> >>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." >>> >>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: >>> > >>> > Ian Welsh >>> > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats >>> > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT >>> > Nancy Pelosi recently said: >>> > >>> > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. >>> > >>> > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) >>> > >>> > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. >>> > >>> > Why would they want to? >>> > >>> > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. >>> > >>> > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. >>> > >>> > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. >>> > >>> > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. >>> > >>> > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. >>> > >>> > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. >>> > >>> > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. >>> > >>> > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) >>> > >>> > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. >>> > >>> > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. >>> > >>> > >>> > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn >>> > >>> > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. >>> > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google >>> > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Mar 17 18:51:18 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 13:51:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Who is going to "bring the troops home"? If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is going to do it? If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to on this stuff. I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're elected. But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes > and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four - > says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to > spend time doing so. > > Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will > continue. > > But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the ‘intelligence > community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) want you to > concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s meant to > distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic elite - > the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. > > Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he > represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war > provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the > Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and > reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like > Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. > > For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin > Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the > previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. > > The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama of a > presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war and > austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. > > Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of all > Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free > education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson > wrote: > > > > Bob, > > > > That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! > > > > David J. > > > > From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM > > To: David Johnson > > Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > > > > > Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing > is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her > political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], > which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > > > > But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, > psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that > they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is > not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work > effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - > like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule > over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is > potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House > Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The > moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The > Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC > doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are > catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear > dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. > A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that > ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So > she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real > fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > > > > Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the > AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected > Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a > confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and > Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi > and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork > in it, it's done. > > > > But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was > an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for > Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing > singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have > a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be > against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out > Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the > uprising. > > > > And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can > try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule > over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the > wars and prevent new ones. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > >> > >> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic > party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched > live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the > podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off > the table, impeachment is off the table “. > >> > >> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and > CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate > campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a > difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. > >> > >> David J. > >> > >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] > On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > >> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > >> To: C G Estabrook > >> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > >> > >> > >> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > >> > >> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > >> > >> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A > resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, > JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN > UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor > insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > >> > >> See here: > >> > >> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > >> > >> === > >> > >> Robert Reuel Naiman > >> Policy Director > >> Just Foreign Policy > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American > president would have been hanged." > >>> > >>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump > should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s > defintion. > >>> > >>> —CGE > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Ian Welsh > >>> > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > >>> > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > >>> > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > >>> > > >>> > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s > something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we > should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not > worth it. > >>> > > >>> > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George > Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her > record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be > pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted > by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs > include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers > (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > >>> > > >>> > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have > control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, > but impeachment is certainly possible. > >>> > > >>> > Why would they want to? > >>> > > >>> > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of > the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, > except by executive fiat. > >>> > > >>> > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of > news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and > cruel thing that Trump has done. > >>> > > >>> > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there > isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans > control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get > most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > >>> > > >>> > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for > months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend > months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > >>> > > >>> > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to > see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for > decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly > can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > >>> > > >>> > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, > crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, > impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > >>> > > >>> > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very > least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being > President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put > everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly > profiting from his Presidency. > >>> > > >>> > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. > Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about > consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > >>> > > >>> > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of > making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope > I’m wrong. > >>> > > >>> > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food > isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > >>> > > >>> > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > >>> > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email > delivery powered by Google > >>> > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United > States > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 22:19:04 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:19:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> Tulsi Gabbard. > On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Who is going to "bring the troops home"? > > If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is going to do it? > > If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to on this stuff. > > I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're elected. > > But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to spend time doing so. > > Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will continue. > > But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. > > Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. > > For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. > > The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. > > Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > > > Bob, > > > > That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! > > > > David J. > > > > From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM > > To: David Johnson > > Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > > > > > Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > > > > But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > > > > Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. > > > > But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. > > > > And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > >> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > >> > >> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. > >> > >> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. > >> > >> David J. > >> > >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > >> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > >> To: C G Estabrook > >> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > >> > >> > >> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > >> > >> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > >> > >> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > >> > >> See here: > >> > >> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > >> > >> === > >> > >> Robert Reuel Naiman > >> Policy Director > >> Just Foreign Policy > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." > >>> > >>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. > >>> > >>> —CGE > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Ian Welsh > >>> > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > >>> > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > >>> > Nancy Pelosi recently said: > >>> > > >>> > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > >>> > > >>> > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > >>> > > >>> > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. > >>> > > >>> > Why would they want to? > >>> > > >>> > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. > >>> > > >>> > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > >>> > > >>> > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > >>> > > >>> > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > >>> > > >>> > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > >>> > > >>> > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > >>> > > >>> > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. > >>> > > >>> > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > >>> > > >>> > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. > >>> > > >>> > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > >>> > > >>> > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > >>> > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google > >>> > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 22:38:14 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:38:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Tulsi Gabbard. > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? >> >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is going to do it? >> >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to on this stuff. >> >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're elected. >> >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. >> >> === >> >> Robert Reuel Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to spend time doing so. >> >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will continue. >> >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. >> >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. >> >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. >> >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. >> >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Bob, >>> >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment >>> >>> >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. >>> >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. >>> >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. >>> >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. >>> >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. >>> >>> === >>> >>> Robert Reuel Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; >>>> >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. >>>> >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM >>>> To: C G Estabrook >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment >>>> >>>> >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. >>>> >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. >>>> >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. >>>> >>>> See here: >>>> >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 >>>> >>>> === >>>> >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." >>>>> >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Welsh >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: >>>>>> >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) >>>>>> >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why would they want to? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn >>>>>> >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Mar 17 23:02:42 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 18:02:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the time. But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying. It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end the Yemen war. That's why we did this alert today: Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the Saudi War in Yemen https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video > > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Tulsi Gabbard. > > > > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? > >> > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is > going to do it? > >> > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the calculations > of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to on this > stuff. > >> > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or one > Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, unless > we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have > to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're elected. > >> > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the Trump > and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second of > all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a > useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going > to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. > >> > >> === > >> > >> Robert Reuel Naiman > >> Policy Director > >> Just Foreign Policy > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes > and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four - > says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to > spend time doing so. > >> > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will > continue. > >> > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the > ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) > want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s > meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic > elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. > >> > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he > represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war > provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the > Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and > reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like > Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. > >> > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin > Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the > previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. > >> > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama > of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war > and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. > >> > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of > all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free > education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. > >> > >> —CGE > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson < > davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> Bob, > >>> > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! > >>> > >>> David J. > >>> > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM > >>> To: David Johnson > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > >>> > >>> > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One > thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing > is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her > line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > >>> > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, > psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that > they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is > not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work > effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - > like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule > over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is > potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House > Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The > moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The > Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC > doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are > catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear > dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. > A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that > ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So > she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real > fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > >>> > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and > the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" > expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. > In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side > and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi > and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork > in it, it's done. > >>> > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was > an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for > Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing > singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have > a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be > against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out > Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the > uprising. > >>> > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we > can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian > rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end > the wars and prevent new ones. > >>> > >>> === > >>> > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman > >>> Policy Director > >>> Just Foreign Policy > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > >>>> > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic > party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched > live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the > podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off > the table, impeachment is off the table “. > >>>> > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and > CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate > campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a > difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. > >>>> > >>>> David J. > >>>> > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] > On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > >>>> To: C G Estabrook > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > >>>> > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > >>>> > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A > resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, > JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN > UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor > insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > >>>> > >>>> See here: > >>>> > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > >>>> > >>>> === > >>>> > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman > >>>> Policy Director > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American > president would have been hanged." > >>>>> > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course > Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under > Nuremberg’s defintion. > >>>>> > >>>>> —CGE > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh < > noreply+feedproxy at google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ian Welsh > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s > something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we > should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not > worth it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George > Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her > record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be > pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted > by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs > include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers > (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have > control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, > but impeachment is certainly possible. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why would they want to? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period > of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing > done, except by executive fiat. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months > of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and > cruel thing that Trump has done. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there > isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans > control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get > most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for > months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend > months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want > to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for > decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly > can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, > crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, > impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very > least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being > President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put > everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly > profiting from his Presidency. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. > Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about > consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of > making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope > I’m wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food > isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email > delivery powered by Google > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United > States > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 23:04:02 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 18:04:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] TDS among the intelligentsia Message-ID: <56C8BEE9-F468-44A6-AC81-2D896CBF9007@gmail.com> Caitlin Johnson: "Things mainstream Americans believe that are exactly as dumb as QAnon: -Russia controls Trump -Trump wants to help Venezuelans -The US is a force for good in the world -Western interventionist disasters have all been innocent blunders - MSM is a reliable source of information" None of the Americans I know (academics, mainly) believes these things, yet they believe something even more lethally insensate and criminal: --that all will go back to "normal" when Trump is gone. Thus, even though they don't believe any of the things on the list they believe "normal" is good. You see how craven they are to accept the abnormal (a lying press, a lying malicious interventionist US government) as "normal" so long as it's not headed by a Trump? Laziest moral sons of bitches on the globe! [Luciana Bohne] From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 00:11:21 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 19:11:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <153E1D30-108E-4404-A2B4-6970BCCC00BA@gmail.com> Quite agree with the eggs/basket problem. But remember who it was who withdrew US troops from SE Asia two generations ago. Someone equally unlikely may withdraw US troops from SW Asia. But it probably won’t result from a deal in a clapped-out Congress. It will probably result form a popular (populist) demand for the abandonment of Obama/Bush neolib/neocon policies - a demand already underway. (It elected Trump.) That’s why the US political establishment is so determined to focus popular attention on Trump: it distracts from the policies people actually object to - more war and more inequality… > On Mar 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the time. But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying. It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end the Yemen war. > > That's why we did this alert today: > > Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the Saudi War in Yemen > https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video > > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > Tulsi Gabbard. > > > > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > >> > >> > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? > >> > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is going to do it? > >> > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to on this stuff. > >> > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're elected. > >> > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. > >> > >> === > >> > >> Robert Reuel Naiman > >> Policy Director > >> Just Foreign Policy > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to spend time doing so. > >> > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will continue. > >> > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. > >> > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. > >> > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. > >> > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. > >> > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. > >> > >> —CGE > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson wrote: > >>> > >>> Bob, > >>> > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! > >>> > >>> David J. > >>> > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM > >>> To: David Johnson > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > >>> > >>> > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > >>> > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > >>> > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. > >>> > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. > >>> > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. > >>> > >>> === > >>> > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman > >>> Policy Director > >>> Just Foreign Policy > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > >>>> > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. > >>>> > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. > >>>> > >>>> David J. > >>>> > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > >>>> To: C G Estabrook > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > >>>> > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > >>>> > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > >>>> > >>>> See here: > >>>> > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > >>>> > >>>> === > >>>> > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman > >>>> Policy Director > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." > >>>>> > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. > >>>>> > >>>>> —CGE > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ian Welsh > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why would they want to? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 15:23:46 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Best overall interview on Venezuela (40 min.) Message-ID: https://thisishell.com/interviews/1047-lucas-koerner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Mar 18 16:12:54 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 11:12:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hands Off Venezuela protests in Washington D.C. Message-ID: <00e801d4dda5$72458cd0$56d0a670$@comcast.net> Here is a link to the video footage of the Hands Off Venezuela protests in Washington D.C. this last Saturday that despite three attempts, Facebook would not share. David J. https://therealnews.com/stories/no-war-for-oil-as-thousands-march-against-us -intervention-in-venezuela?fbclid=IwAR2HQmcgU_WJKiNoFzh171MUHhXJxiplZrMOa3MM 2PFp6Q6Md8EgpU8XoUY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Mar 18 17:21:34 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:21:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: <153E1D30-108E-4404-A2B4-6970BCCC00BA@gmail.com> References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> <153E1D30-108E-4404-A2B4-6970BCCC00BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, "all of the above." But the way our elections work, the clamor doesn't lead to the outcome. Obama ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. Trump ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. So, by itself, the clamor isn't doing squat. If we want to get different outcomes, we need to do something else besides merely trying to fan the flames of the clamor. On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:11 PM C G Estabrook wrote: > Quite agree with the eggs/basket problem. > > But remember who it was who withdrew US troops from SE Asia two > generations ago. > > Someone equally unlikely may withdraw US troops from SW Asia. > > But it probably won’t result from a deal in a clapped-out Congress. > > It will probably result form a popular (populist) demand for the > abandonment of Obama/Bush neolib/neocon policies - a demand already > underway. (It elected Trump.) > > That’s why the US political establishment is so determined to focus > popular attention on Trump: it distracts from the policies people actually > object to - more war and more inequality… > > > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > > > > > I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the time. > But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in that > basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that > unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems > talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just > focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two > issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as > evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for > those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying. > It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying > on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking > Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end > the Yemen war. > > > > That's why we did this alert today: > > > > Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the Saudi > War in Yemen > > > https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > Tulsi Gabbard. > > > > > > > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? > > >> > > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is > going to do it? > > >> > > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the > calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to > on this stuff. > > >> > > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or > one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, > unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who > they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're > elected. > > >> > > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the > Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second > of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a > useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going > to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. > > >> > > >> === > > >> > > >> Robert Reuel Naiman > > >> Policy Director > > >> Just Foreign Policy > > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high > crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section > four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s > silly to spend time doing so. > > >> > > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will > continue. > > >> > > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the > ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) > want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s > meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic > elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. > > >> > > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he > represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war > provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the > Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and > reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like > Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. > > >> > > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin > Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the > previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. > > >> > > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama > of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war > and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. > > >> > > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of > all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free > education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. > > >> > > >> —CGE > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson < > davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Bob, > > >>> > > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! > > >>> > > >>> David J. > > >>> > > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM > > >>> To: David Johnson > > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One > thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing > is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her > line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > > >>> > > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, > psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that > they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is > not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work > effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - > like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule > over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is > potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House > Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The > moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The > Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC > doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are > catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear > dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. > A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that > ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So > she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real > fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > > >>> > > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and > the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" > expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. > In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side > and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi > and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork > in it, it's done. > > >>> > > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there > was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support > for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing > singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have > a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be > against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out > Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the > uprising. > > >>> > > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we > can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian > rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end > the wars and prevent new ones. > > >>> > > >>> === > > >>> > > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman > > >>> Policy Director > > >>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > > >>>> > > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic > party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched > live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the > podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off > the table, impeachment is off the table “. > > >>>> > > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE > and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via > corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES > make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment > resolution. > > >>>> > > >>>> David J. > > >>>> > > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto: > peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via > Peace-discuss > > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > > >>>> To: C G Estabrook > > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > > >>>> > > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > > >>>> > > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A > resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, > JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN > UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor > insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > > >>>> > > >>>> See here: > > >>>> > > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > > >>>> > > >>>> === > > >>>> > > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman > > >>>> Policy Director > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American > president would have been hanged." > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course > Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under > Nuremberg’s defintion. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> —CGE > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh < > noreply+feedproxy at google.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Ian Welsh > > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s > something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we > should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not > worth it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching > George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent > with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be > pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted > by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs > include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers > (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have > control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, > but impeachment is certainly possible. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Why would they want to? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period > of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing > done, except by executive fiat. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months > of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and > cruel thing that Trump has done. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there > isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans > control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get > most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass > for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that > spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want > to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for > decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly > can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the > mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, > impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the > very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from > being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put > everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly > profiting from his Presidency. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. > Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about > consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger > of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I > hope I’m wrong. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but > food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. > Email delivery powered by Google > > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, > United States > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> 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 > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 22:01:24 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:01:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> <153E1D30-108E-4404-A2B4-6970BCCC00BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <44C5509A-A54A-4C3D-8293-4A9D0AAB0709@gmail.com> A. Lincoln (himself rather good at fooling people) is supposed to have said (in a burst of optimism), "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” But the American ascendency has perhaps got better at it in a century and a half. It will be harder for the populist uprising to succeed, but the 'major parties’ will probably not be able to stop it - tho’ they’re willing to risk a lot of damage to try. > On Mar 18, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Well, "all of the above." > > But the way our elections work, the clamor doesn't lead to the outcome. > > Obama ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. > > Trump ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. > > So, by itself, the clamor isn't doing squat. If we want to get different outcomes, we need to do something else besides merely trying to fan the flames of the clamor. > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:11 PM C G Estabrook wrote: > Quite agree with the eggs/basket problem. > > But remember who it was who withdrew US troops from SE Asia two generations ago. > > Someone equally unlikely may withdraw US troops from SW Asia. > > But it probably won’t result from a deal in a clapped-out Congress. > > It will probably result form a popular (populist) demand for the abandonment of Obama/Bush neolib/neocon policies - a demand already underway. (It elected Trump.) > > That’s why the US political establishment is so determined to focus popular attention on Trump: it distracts from the policies people actually object to - more war and more inequality… > > > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the time. But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying. It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end the Yemen war. > > > > That's why we did this alert today: > > > > Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the Saudi War in Yemen > > https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > Tulsi Gabbard. > > > > > > > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? > > >> > > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is going to do it? > > >> > > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to on this stuff. > > >> > > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're elected. > > >> > > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. > > >> > > >> === > > >> > > >> Robert Reuel Naiman > > >> Policy Director > > >> Just Foreign Policy > > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to spend time doing so. > > >> > > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will continue. > > >> > > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. > > >> > > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. > > >> > > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. > > >> > > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. > > >> > > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. > > >> > > >> —CGE > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Bob, > > >>> > > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! > > >>> > > >>> David J. > > >>> > > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM > > >>> To: David Johnson > > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > > >>> > > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > > >>> > > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. > > >>> > > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. > > >>> > > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. > > >>> > > >>> === > > >>> > > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman > > >>> Policy Director > > >>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > > >>>> > > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. > > >>>> > > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. > > >>>> > > >>>> David J. > > >>>> > > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > > >>>> To: C G Estabrook > > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > > >>>> > > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > > >>>> > > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > > >>>> > > >>>> See here: > > >>>> > > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > > >>>> > > >>>> === > > >>>> > > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman > > >>>> Policy Director > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> —CGE > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Ian Welsh > > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Why would they want to? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google > > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> 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 > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Mar 18 22:12:43 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:12:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: <44C5509A-A54A-4C3D-8293-4A9D0AAB0709@gmail.com> References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> <153E1D30-108E-4404-A2B4-6970BCCC00BA@gmail.com> <44C5509A-A54A-4C3D-8293-4A9D0AAB0709@gmail.com> Message-ID: The election of Trump was, after a fashion, a populist uprising. What, if anything, could we do to have more influence over the outcome of the next such populist uprising? === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > A. Lincoln (himself rather good at fooling people) is supposed to have > said (in a burst of optimism), > "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all > the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” > > But the American ascendency has perhaps got better at it in a century and > a half. > > It will be harder for the populist uprising to succeed, but the 'major > parties’ will probably not be able to stop it > - tho’ they’re willing to risk a lot of damage to try. > > > > > On Mar 18, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > Well, "all of the above." > > > > But the way our elections work, the clamor doesn't lead to the outcome. > > > > Obama ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. > > > > Trump ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. > > > > So, by itself, the clamor isn't doing squat. If we want to get different > outcomes, we need to do something else besides merely trying to fan the > flames of the clamor. > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:11 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > > Quite agree with the eggs/basket problem. > > > > But remember who it was who withdrew US troops from SE Asia two > generations ago. > > > > Someone equally unlikely may withdraw US troops from SW Asia. > > > > But it probably won’t result from a deal in a clapped-out Congress. > > > > It will probably result form a popular (populist) demand for the > abandonment of Obama/Bush neolib/neocon policies - a demand already > underway. (It elected Trump.) > > > > That’s why the US political establishment is so determined to focus > popular attention on Trump: it distracts from the policies people actually > object to - more war and more inequality… > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the > time. But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in > that basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that > unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems > talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just > focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two > issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as > evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for > those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying. > It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying > on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking > Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end > the Yemen war. > > > > > > That's why we did this alert today: > > > > > > Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the Saudi > War in Yemen > > > > https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Tulsi Gabbard. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? > > > >> > > > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who > is going to do it? > > > >> > > > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the > calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to > on this stuff. > > > >> > > > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or > one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, > unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who > they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're > elected. > > > >> > > > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the > Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second > of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a > useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going > to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. > > > >> > > > >> === > > > >> > > > >> Robert Reuel Naiman > > > >> Policy Director > > > >> Just Foreign Policy > > > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high > crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section > four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s > silly to spend time doing so. > > > >> > > > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes > will continue. > > > >> > > > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the > ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) > want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s > meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic > elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. > > > >> > > > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he > represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war > provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the > Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and > reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like > Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. > > > >> > > > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin > Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the > previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. > > > >> > > > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the > melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about > their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. > > > >> > > > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being > of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free > education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. > > > >> > > > >> —CGE > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson < > davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Bob, > > > >>> > > > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! > > > >>> > > > >>> David J. > > > >>> > > > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > > > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM > > > >>> To: David Johnson > > > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One > thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing > is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her > line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > > > >>> > > > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, > psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that > they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is > not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work > effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - > like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule > over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is > potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House > Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The > moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The > Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC > doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are > catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear > dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. > A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that > ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So > she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real > fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > > > >>> > > > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi > and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" > expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. > In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side > and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi > and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork > in it, it's done. > > > >>> > > > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there > was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support > for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing > singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have > a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be > against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out > Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the > uprising. > > > >>> > > > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So > we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian > rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end > the wars and prevent new ones. > > > >>> > > > >>> === > > > >>> > > > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman > > > >>> Policy Director > > > >>> Just Foreign Policy > > > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the > Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage > switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to > the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is > off the table, impeachment is off the table “. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE > and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via > corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES > make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment > resolution. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> David J. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto: > peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via > Peace-discuss > > > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > > > >>>> To: C G Estabrook > > > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. > A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged > resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM > AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor > insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> See here: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > > > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> === > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman > > > >>>> Policy Director > > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > > > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war > American president would have been hanged." > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course > Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under > Nuremberg’s defintion. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> —CGE > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh < > noreply+feedproxy at google.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Ian Welsh > > > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > > > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > > > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s > something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we > should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not > worth it. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching > George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent > with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be > pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted > by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs > include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers > (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have > control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, > but impeachment is certainly possible. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Why would they want to? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the > period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually > nothing done, except by executive fiat. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate > months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, > corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there > isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans > control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get > most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass > for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that > spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans > “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made > for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly > can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the > mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, > impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the > very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from > being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put > everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly > profiting from his Presidency. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. > Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about > consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger > of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I > hope I’m wrong. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but > food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > > > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. > Email delivery powered by Google > > > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, > United States > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>> 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 > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 22:55:59 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:55:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> <153E1D30-108E-4404-A2B4-6970BCCC00BA@gmail.com> <44C5509A-A54A-4C3D-8293-4A9D0AAB0709@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, it was. We should see that the winner does not fall into the hands of the neocons and neolibs who ran the previous administrations. > On Mar 18, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > The election of Trump was, after a fashion, a populist uprising. > > What, if anything, could we do to have more influence over the outcome of the next such populist uprising? > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> A. Lincoln (himself rather good at fooling people) is supposed to have said (in a burst of optimism), >> "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” >> >> But the American ascendency has perhaps got better at it in a century and a half. >> >> It will be harder for the populist uprising to succeed, but the 'major parties’ will probably not be able to stop it >> - tho’ they’re willing to risk a lot of damage to try. >> >> >> >> > On Mar 18, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > >> > >> > Well, "all of the above." >> > >> > But the way our elections work, the clamor doesn't lead to the outcome. >> > >> > Obama ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. >> > >> > Trump ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. >> > >> > So, by itself, the clamor isn't doing squat. If we want to get different outcomes, we need to do something else besides merely trying to fan the flames of the clamor. >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:11 PM C G Estabrook wrote: >> > Quite agree with the eggs/basket problem. >> > >> > But remember who it was who withdrew US troops from SE Asia two generations ago. >> > >> > Someone equally unlikely may withdraw US troops from SW Asia. >> > >> > But it probably won’t result from a deal in a clapped-out Congress. >> > >> > It will probably result form a popular (populist) demand for the abandonment of Obama/Bush neolib/neocon policies - a demand already underway. (It elected Trump.) >> > >> > That’s why the US political establishment is so determined to focus popular attention on Trump: it distracts from the policies people actually object to - more war and more inequality… >> > >> > >> > >> > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the time. But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying. It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end the Yemen war. >> > > >> > > That's why we did this alert today: >> > > >> > > Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the Saudi War in Yemen >> > > https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen >> > > >> > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Tulsi Gabbard. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? >> > > >> >> > > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is going to do it? >> > > >> >> > > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to on this stuff. >> > > >> >> > > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're elected. >> > > >> >> > > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. >> > > >> >> > > >> === >> > > >> >> > > >> Robert Reuel Naiman >> > > >> Policy Director >> > > >> Just Foreign Policy >> > > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to spend time doing so. >> > > >> >> > > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will continue. >> > > >> >> > > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. >> > > >> >> > > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. >> > > >> >> > > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. >> > > >> >> > > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. >> > > >> >> > > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. >> > > >> >> > > >> —CGE >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Bob, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! >> > > >>> >> > > >>> David J. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] >> > > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM >> > > >>> To: David Johnson >> > > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh >> > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> === >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman >> > > >>> Policy Director >> > > >>> Just Foreign Policy >> > > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> David J. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> > > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM >> > > >>>> To: C G Estabrook >> > > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh >> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> See here: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War >> > > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> === >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman >> > > >>>> Policy Director >> > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >> > > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> —CGE >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Ian Welsh >> > > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats >> > > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT >> > > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Why would they want to? >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. >> > > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google >> > > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> > > >>>>> 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 >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > >> 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 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Mar 18 23:03:20 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 18:03:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> <153E1D30-108E-4404-A2B4-6970BCCC00BA@gmail.com> <44C5509A-A54A-4C3D-8293-4A9D0AAB0709@gmail.com> Message-ID: Trump has clearly fallen into the hands of the neocons. Bolton, Pompeo, Abrams. Can't get any more neocon than that. If there's something we could do in such a situation in the future, why don't we do it now? Why haven't we done it already? What is that thing that we could do? Let's do it now. Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:56 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Yes, it was. > > We should see that the winner does not fall into the hands of the neocons > and neolibs who ran the previous administrations. > > On Mar 18, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > > The election of Trump was, after a fashion, a populist uprising. > > What, if anything, could we do to have more influence over the outcome of > the next such populist uprising? > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> A. Lincoln (himself rather good at fooling people) is supposed to have >> said (in a burst of optimism), >> "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all >> the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” >> >> But the American ascendency has perhaps got better at it in a century and >> a half. >> >> It will be harder for the populist uprising to succeed, but the 'major >> parties’ will probably not be able to stop it >> - tho’ they’re willing to risk a lot of damage to try. >> >> >> >> > On Mar 18, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Well, "all of the above." >> > >> > But the way our elections work, the clamor doesn't lead to the outcome. >> > >> > Obama ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. >> > >> > Trump ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. >> > >> > So, by itself, the clamor isn't doing squat. If we want to get >> different outcomes, we need to do something else besides merely trying to >> fan the flames of the clamor. >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:11 PM C G Estabrook >> wrote: >> > Quite agree with the eggs/basket problem. >> > >> > But remember who it was who withdrew US troops from SE Asia two >> generations ago. >> > >> > Someone equally unlikely may withdraw US troops from SW Asia. >> > >> > But it probably won’t result from a deal in a clapped-out Congress. >> > >> > It will probably result form a popular (populist) demand for the >> abandonment of Obama/Bush neolib/neocon policies - a demand already >> underway. (It elected Trump.) >> > >> > That’s why the US political establishment is so determined to focus >> popular attention on Trump: it distracts from the policies people actually >> object to - more war and more inequality… >> > >> > >> > >> > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Robert Naiman < >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the >> time. But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in >> that basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that >> unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems >> talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just >> focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two >> issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as >> evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for >> those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying. >> It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying >> on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking >> Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end >> the Yemen war. >> > > >> > > That's why we did this alert today: >> > > >> > > Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the Saudi >> War in Yemen >> > > >> https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen >> > > >> > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > > >> https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Tulsi Gabbard. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? >> > > >> >> > > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who >> is going to do it? >> > > >> >> > > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the >> calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to >> on this stuff. >> > > >> >> > > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump >> or one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, >> unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who >> they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're >> elected. >> > > >> >> > > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the >> Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second >> of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a >> useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going >> to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. >> > > >> >> > > >> === >> > > >> >> > > >> Robert Reuel Naiman >> > > >> Policy Director >> > > >> Just Foreign Policy >> > > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high >> crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section >> four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s >> silly to spend time doing so. >> > > >> >> > > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes >> will continue. >> > > >> >> > > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the >> ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) >> want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s >> meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic >> elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. >> > > >> >> > > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he >> represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war >> provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the >> Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and >> reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like >> Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. >> > > >> >> > > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since >> Calvin Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of >> the previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. >> > > >> >> > > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the >> melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about >> their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. >> > > >> >> > > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being >> of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free >> education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. >> > > >> >> > > >> —CGE >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson < >> davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Bob, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! >> > > >>> >> > > >>> David J. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] >> > > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM >> > > >>> To: David Johnson >> > > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh >> > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One >> thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing >> is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her >> line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, >> psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that >> they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is >> not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work >> effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - >> like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule >> over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is >> potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House >> Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The >> moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The >> Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC >> doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are >> catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear >> dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. >> A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that >> ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So >> she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real >> fight among House Democrats about impeachment. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi >> and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" >> expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. >> In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side >> and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC >> Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC >> Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi >> and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork >> in it, it's done. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that >> there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of >> support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but >> opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you >> want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. >> Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just >> singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened >> because of the uprising. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So >> we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian >> rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end >> the wars and prevent new ones. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> === >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman >> > > >>> Policy Director >> > > >>> Just Foreign Policy >> > > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the >> Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage >> switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to >> the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is >> off the table, impeachment is off the table “. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE >> and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via >> corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES >> make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment >> resolution. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> David J. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto: >> peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via >> Peace-discuss >> > > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM >> > > >>>> To: C G Estabrook >> > > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh >> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. >> A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged >> resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM >> AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor >> insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> See here: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War >> > > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> === >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman >> > > >>>> Policy Director >> > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >> > > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war >> American president would have been hanged." >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of >> course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under >> Nuremberg’s defintion. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> —CGE >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh < >> noreply+feedproxy at google.com> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Ian Welsh >> > > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats >> > > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT >> > > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s >> something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we >> should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not >> worth it. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching >> George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent >> with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be >> pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted >> by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs >> include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers >> (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have >> control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, >> but impeachment is certainly possible. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Why would they want to? >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the >> period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually >> nothing done, except by executive fiat. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate >> months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, >> corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: >> there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans >> control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get >> most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass >> for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that >> spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans >> “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made >> for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly >> can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the >> mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, >> impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the >> very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from >> being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put >> everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly >> profiting from his Presidency. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. >> Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about >> consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in >> danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, >> but I hope I’m wrong. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but >> food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. >> > > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. >> Email delivery powered by Google >> > > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, >> United States >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> > > >>>>> 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 >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > >> 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 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 02:45:32 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:45:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> <153E1D30-108E-4404-A2B4-6970BCCC00BA@gmail.com> <44C5509A-A54A-4C3D-8293-4A9D0AAB0709@gmail.com> Message-ID: The populist uprising continues and grows, at home and abroad. See Brexit, les gilets jaunes, M5S/Lega government - and the vast efforts expended by US media to convince us that anti-elite sentiment in the US can be contained by the two dominant parties: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” [Noam Chomsky] Rosa Luxemburg, murdered by a social democratic government a century ago, said on the contrary, “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” What is happening now is that anti-neolib/anti-neocon sentiment - populism - in the US is expanding and slipping out of elite control. That’s the source of hysterical attacks on Ilhan Omar, AOC, Tulsi Gabbard, et al. > On Mar 18, 2019, at 6:03 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Trump has clearly fallen into the hands of the neocons. Bolton, Pompeo, Abrams. Can't get any more neocon than that. > > If there's something we could do in such a situation in the future, why don't we do it now? Why haven't we done it already? What is that thing that we could do? Let's do it now. > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:56 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > Yes, it was. > > We should see that the winner does not fall into the hands of the neocons and neolibs who ran the previous administrations. > > On Mar 18, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > >> >> The election of Trump was, after a fashion, a populist uprising. >> >> What, if anything, could we do to have more influence over the outcome of the next such populist uprising? >> >> === >> >> Robert Reuel Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> A. Lincoln (himself rather good at fooling people) is supposed to have said (in a burst of optimism), >> "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” >> >> But the American ascendency has perhaps got better at it in a century and a half. >> >> It will be harder for the populist uprising to succeed, but the 'major parties’ will probably not be able to stop it >> - tho’ they’re willing to risk a lot of damage to try. >> >> >> >> > On Mar 18, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > >> > >> > Well, "all of the above." >> > >> > But the way our elections work, the clamor doesn't lead to the outcome. >> > >> > Obama ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. >> > >> > Trump ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. >> > >> > So, by itself, the clamor isn't doing squat. If we want to get different outcomes, we need to do something else besides merely trying to fan the flames of the clamor. >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:11 PM C G Estabrook wrote: >> > Quite agree with the eggs/basket problem. >> > >> > But remember who it was who withdrew US troops from SE Asia two generations ago. >> > >> > Someone equally unlikely may withdraw US troops from SW Asia. >> > >> > But it probably won’t result from a deal in a clapped-out Congress. >> > >> > It will probably result form a popular (populist) demand for the abandonment of Obama/Bush neolib/neocon policies - a demand already underway. (It elected Trump.) >> > >> > That’s why the US political establishment is so determined to focus popular attention on Trump: it distracts from the policies people actually object to - more war and more inequality… >> > >> > >> > >> > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the time. But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying. It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end the Yemen war. >> > > >> > > That's why we did this alert today: >> > > >> > > Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the Saudi War in Yemen >> > > https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen >> > > >> > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Tulsi Gabbard. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? >> > > >> >> > > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is going to do it? >> > > >> >> > > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to on this stuff. >> > > >> >> > > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're elected. >> > > >> >> > > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it. >> > > >> >> > > >> === >> > > >> >> > > >> Robert Reuel Naiman >> > > >> Policy Director >> > > >> Just Foreign Policy >> > > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to spend time doing so. >> > > >> >> > > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will continue. >> > > >> >> > > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. >> > > >> >> > > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. >> > > >> >> > > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. >> > > >> >> > > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. >> > > >> >> > > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money. >> > > >> >> > > >> —CGE >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Bob, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! >> > > >>> >> > > >>> David J. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] >> > > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM >> > > >>> To: David Johnson >> > > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh >> > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real fight among House Democrats about impeachment. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork in it, it's done. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the uprising. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> === >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman >> > > >>> Policy Director >> > > >>> Just Foreign Policy >> > > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off the table, impeachment is off the table “. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> David J. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> > > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM >> > > >>>> To: C G Estabrook >> > > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh >> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> See here: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War >> > > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> === >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman >> > > >>>> Policy Director >> > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >> > > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s defintion. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> —CGE >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Ian Welsh >> > > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats >> > > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT >> > > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Why would they want to? >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done, except by executive fiat. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly profiting from his Presidency. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope I’m wrong. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. >> > > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google >> > > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> > > >>>>> 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 >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > >> 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 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Mar 19 03:23:43 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 22:23:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] anti-neoconservative notes Message-ID: Some notes to spur discussion on AWARE on the Air. Somalia: The "autopilot" drone-led oil war the media isn't talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd2E9FSKki4 -- RT's report on the US-led Somali war in which airstrikes and killer drones are leading the way to clearing out anyone who stops the US from "readying for oil exploration" and "working on petroleum law"[1] to quote the Voice of America News. From RT's report: > The US has been bombing al-Shabaab Islamic militants there [in Somalia], > on and off, since 2007. It's proved a minor inconvenience to the > Al-Qaeda fanboys who continue to go about their business pretty much > unimpeded. So the hundreds of thousands of civilians forced to flee > their homes[2] have found themselves caught between the usual lunatic > terrorists and anonymous killing machines. [1] https://www.voanews.com/a/somalia-readies-for-oil-exploration-still-working-on-petroleum-law/4785064.html [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/07/us-bombardments-are-driving-somalis-from-their-homes-airstrikes-al-shabab/ RT continues: > So the US military has found itself in quite the sweet spot: it's got a > surplus of killer drones that are no longer needed in Syria, and a nice > sandy warzone that no one is paying attention to. Guess what they > decided? Airstrikes for Somalia! They've surged in the past 6 months. > Dozens of militants have been killed.[3] And absolutely no civilians, > says the military. Aid agencies and locals say that actually civilians > have been killed[4]. [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-46592101 [4] https://allafrica.com/stories/201712110133.html RT concludes: > Somalia is a straightforward war to fight: there's an obvious bad guy, > the drones are doing all of the heavy lifting, and it's all being > conducted by US Africa command in -- Stuttgart. A city, many of you will > know, isn't actually in Africa. A former US government official > described Somalia as war "on autopilot"[5]. Bombing campaigns against > poor countries have not worked out well in the past. But then again, if > no one is paying attention, what do they have to lose? [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/us/politics/us-somalia-airstrikes-shabab.html -- Former National Security Council analyst Brittany Brown, now chief of staff for the International Crisis Group told this to the New York Times: "People need to pay attention to the fact that there is this massive war going on". Venezuela: US gives away Venezuelan properties, stumping for war? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lVBqV5cPqg -- The US wants to seize control of the Venezuelan Military Attache building in Washington DC. Carlos Vecchio, Juan Guaido's so-called Venezuelan ambassador to the US, took control of another Venezuelan government building after having a locksmith let him in and did so with the blessing of the US State Dept. DPRK: Is the CIA behind a DPRK embassy break-in? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtLXM3sD1NA -- The DPRK embassy was raided on Friday, February 22 shortly before the Trump/Kim Jong-Un summit in Hanoi. 10 masked men broke into the embassy in the afternoon, bound and gagged the staff, interrogated the staff, and stole equipment. One woman escaped by climbing out a window and got someone to call the police: RT's report: > Officers knocked on the door to investigate but they were greeted by a > man who opened the door and told them everything was fine. Shortly > after, two cars left the compound at high speed, one of them reportedly > actually carrying that man who opened the door. [...] According to > Spanish police and investigators from Spain's national intelligence > center, yes, the CIA was involved; they have linked this attack to the > CIA. According to El Pais [...] they reported that these investigators > have ruled out that this was a simple robbery by what they call "common > criminals". Although the CIA has, of course, denied involvement, the > Spanish government is telling El Pais that the CIA report is > "unconvincing". They say that this attack was "perfectly planned, as > though it were carried out by a military cell". See https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/03/13/inenglish/1552464196_279320.html for more. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) on CNN; explaining her request for evidence, not being examined closely on some other war-related issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZSGZINjvbs -- Jimmy Dore's take on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's (D-HI) interview in another CNN "town hall forum". CNN set up their pro-war questioners, seemingly hand-picked from the elites to represent pro-war views. It's the usual repeat questions trying to allege that Rep. Gabbard is 'soft on Assad' followed by Gabbard's patient explanation that she wants the evidence to guide her understanding of what is going on in Syria and what the US did. There were no questions asking her about her views supporting "surgical strikes", drone war, and her view that there should be "no long-term deployment, no long-term occupation" (quoting her from her January 2018 Intercept interview). I get into her seemingly pro-war views in https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/. Jimmy Dore offered no examination of that Intercept interview. From https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with strike > forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your position > that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the U.S. > military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is that > still your position? > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > current AUMFs. > > 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. Military spending: still on the rise, the top 6 companies remain the same (with only minor rank shuffling). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4EKumpI3hg https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/21/military-spending-defense-contractors-profiting-from-war-weapons-sales/39092315/ From USA Today in 2019: > There was a 1.1 percent increase in global military spending in 2017, > according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. > > The global rise was driven partially by a $9.6 billion hike in U.S. arms > expenditure – the United States is the world’s largest defense spender > by a wide margin. Though it is yet unclear what the growing arms > investments will mean for international relations, major defense > contractors around the world stand to benefit. > > Total arms sales among the world’s 100 largest defense contractors > topped $398 billion in 2017 after climbing for the third consecutive > year. Notably, Russia, one of the countries with the fastest growing > militaries over the last decade, became the second largest > arms-producing country, overtaking the United Kingdom for the first time > since 2002. The United States’ position as the top arms-producing nation > in the world remains unchanged, and for now unchallenged. > > The United States is home to five of the world’s 10 largest defense > contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent of total arms > sales by the world’s 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI > data. > > Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor in the > world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 > through deals with governments all over the world. The company drew > public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a > school bus in Yemen, killing 40 boys and 11 adults. Lockheed’s revenue > from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual > budgets of the IRS and the Environmental Protection Agency, combined. The top 6 war profiteers (weapons contractors or "defense contractors" to use their parlance) remain the same -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. From USA Today in 2013 -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/ > The business of war is profitable. In 2011, the 100 largest contractors > sold $410 billion in arms and military services. Just 10 of those > companies sold over $208 billion. Based on a list of the top 100 > arms-producing and military services companies in 2011 compiled by the > Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 24/7 Wall St. > reviewed the 10 companies with the most military sales worldwide. > > These companies have benefited tremendously from the growth in military > spending in the U.S., which by far has the largest military budget in > the world. In 2000, the U.S. defense budget was approximately $312 > billion. By 2011, the figure had grown to $712 billion. Arm sales grew > alongside general defense spending growth. SIPRI noted that between 2002 > and 2011, arms sales among the top 100 companies grew by 51%. > > However, the trend has recently reversed. In 2011, the top 100 arms > dealers sold 5% less compared to 2010. Susan Jackson, a SIPRI defense > expert, said in an email to 24/7 Wall St. that austerity measures in > Western Europe and the U.S. have delayed or slowed the procurement of > different weapons systems. Austerity concerns have exacerbated matters. > Federal budget cuts that took effect in March mean military spending > could contract by more than $500 billion over the coming decade unless > policymakers negotiate a pullback on the mandated cuts. > > In addition, the U.S.' involvement in conflicts abroad continue to wind > down. The last American convoy in Iraq left the country in December > 2011. Troop withdrawals from Afghanistan also began in 2011. Finally, > SIPRI pointed out sanctions on arms transfers to Libya have contributed > to declining arms sales. From USA Today in 2019 -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/21/military-spending-defense-contractors-profiting-from-war-weapons-sales/39092315/ > 10. Almaz-Antey > • Country: Russia > • Arms sales: $8.6 billion > • Total sales: $9.1 billion > • Profit: $422.6 million > • Employees: 129,000 > > 9. Leonardo > • Country: Italy > • Arms sales: $8.9 billion > • Total sales: $13.0 billion > • Profit: $310.3 million > • Employees: 45,134 > > 8. Thales > • Country: France > • Arms sales: $9.0 billion > • Total sales: $17.8 billion > • Profit: $931.1 million > • Employees: 65,000 > > 7. Airbus Group > • Country: Trans-European > • Arms sales: $11.3 billion > • Total sales: $75.2 billion > • Profit: $3.3 billion > • Employees: 133,671 > > 6. General Dynamics Corp. > • Country: United States > • Arms sales: $19.5 billion > • Total sales: $31.0 billion > • Profit: $2.9 billion > • Employees: 105,600 > > 5. Northrop Grumman Corp. > • Country: United States > • Arms sales: $22.4 billion > • Total sales: $25.8 billion > • Profit: $2.0 billion > • Employees: 85,000 > > 4. BAE Systems > • Country: United Kingdom > • Arms sales: $22.9 billion > • Total sales: $23.5 billion > • Profit: $1.1 billion > • Employees: 83,200 > > 3. Raytheon > • Country: United States > • Arms sales: $23.9 billion > • Total sales: $25.3 billion > • Profit: $2.0 billion > • Employees: 67,000 > > 2. Boeing > • Country: United States > • Arms sales: $26.9 billion > • Total sales: $93.4 billion > • Profit: $8.2 billion > • Employees: 153,000 > > 1. Lockheed Martin Corp. > • Country: United States > • Arms sales: $44.9 billion > • Total sales: $51.0 billion > • Profit: $2.0 billion > • Employees: 105,000 From USA Today in 2013 -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/ > 10. United Technologies (UTX) -- aircraft, electronics, engines > Arm sales: $11.6 billion, total sales: $58.2 billion > Gross profit: $5.3 billion, total workforce: 199,900 > > 9. L-3 Communications (LLL) -- electronics > Arm sales: $12.5 billion, total sales: $15.2 billion > Gross profit: $956 million, total workforce: 61,000 > > 8. Finmeccanica -- aircraft, artillery, engines, electronics, vehicles and missiles > Arms sales, $14.6 billion, total sales: $24.1 billion > Gross profit: $ -3.2 billion, total workforce: 70,470 > > 7. EADS -- aircraft, electronics, missiles and space > Arm sales: $16.4 billion, total sales: $68.3 billion > Gross profit: $1.4 billion, total workforce: 133,120 > > 6. Northrop Grumman (NOC) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, ships, space > Arm sales: $21.4 billion, total sales: $26.4 billion > Gross profit: $2.1 billion, total workforce: 72,500 > > 5. Raytheon (RTN) -- electronics, missiles > Arm sales: $22.5 billion, total sales: $24.9 billion > Gross profit: $1.9 billion, total workforce: 71,000 > > 4. General Dynamics (GD) -- artillery, electronics, vehicles, small arms, ships > Arm sales: $23.8 billion, total sales: $32.7 billion > Gross profit: $2.5 billion, total workforce: 95,100 > > 3. BAE Systems -- aircraft, artillery, electronics, vehicles, missiles, ships > Arm sales: $29.2 billion, total sales: $30.7 billion > Gross profit: $2.3 billion, total workforce: 93,500 > > 2. Boeing (BA) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space > Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion > Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700 > > 1. Lockheed Martin (LMT) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space > Arm sales:$36.3 billion, total sales: $46.5 billion > Gross profit: $2.7 billion, total workforce, 123,000 -J From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Mar 19 03:49:52 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 22:49:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] anti-neoconservative notes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wrote: > Some notes to spur discussion on AWARE on the Air. Here's one more note on Venezuela: Venezuela: Sanctions are harming many people, corporate media is pro-US/pro-invasion propaganda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ7S2sXWWps -- Jimmy Dore interviews independent journalist Eva Bartlett who is on the ground in Venezuela reporting about her flight delay (American Airlines delayed Barlett's flight because American Airlines claimed told her was "no electricity" at Caracas airport), the social media responses she's received challenging her for her posting about what she saw and heard from Venezuelan citizens of the barrios she visited, and discussing the other effects of the US sanctions on the Venezuelan people: harming and possibly killing people through stopping medicine deliveries for chronic illnesses like insulin for Type 1 diabetes and medicines to treat heart ailments older people are more likely to experience. Here's what Bartlett had to say about the American Airlines claim at 1m38s: > Eva Bartlett: So I arrived on March 10th. I would have arrived a day > earlier but American Airlines cancelled my flight after delaying it a > few times. And I had to scramble to get a ticket last-minute on Copa > Airlines. And it's worth mentioning that American Airlines' excuse for > cancelling the flight was that there was no electricity in Caracas > airport. When they first delayed the flight I contacted people I knew in > Caracas and said 'Hey, is this true?' and they said 'Well there's enough > electricity for planes to land; planes are landing and taking off.'. > Nonetheless, American Airlines went on to cancel another flight the > following day of two people that were also coming to Caracas. I actually > came here as part of a US Peace Council delegation. There were, I think > it was, 13 people and we've been visiting a number of areas around > Caracas including this barrio -- a really poor area called Catia -- > which is doing amazing things in the community. Later on in the program around 21m24s she concluded: > Eva Bartlett: I did tell you at the start that I came with a US Peace > Council. I did also mention that American Airlines made it difficult for > many of us to get here, and difficult to leave since they cancelled > flights. But I want to make just one point about that: Number one, I > absolutely don't think that them cancelling flights on the way here was > about concerns about electricity. I think that they were just trying to > prevent people from coming here to actually honestly witness. And number > two, I don't think the US travel advisory is based on concern for human > rights or concern for safety, I should say, and American Airlines going > along with that [...] I think it's part of this whole manufacturing > public opinion that there's a crisis in Venezuela. I think that's what > this is about. But what I want to say is they're cancelling my flight -- > I should have flown [hard to distinguish] I think -- I was going to > continue on from Toronto to Kiev and I was going to attend a Supreme > Court meeting of the imprisoned Ukranian Russian journalist Kushinsky > who has been imprisoned by the Kiev authorities since May 2018 without a > trial, he's been held in pre-trial detention. And I was going to go to > his Supreme Court hearing, potentially have the chance to speak to him, > but because of American Airlines stranding me here [in Venezuela] I'm > not able to go there. I've missed my flights; if I try to leave now it's > too late, I've missed my connecting flights. So I just want to make that > point. And the other point I'll make is that because of their little > antic I'm staying in Venezuela. And I'm going to leave Caracas and move > around to some of these plots that corporate media is insisting is a > humanitarian crisis. Sanctions are war against the people. Starving the people of Venezuela stands in stark opposition to the language the US government and its corporate-friendly media coverage give when speaking about the plight of the poor Venezuelans. Eva Bartlett spoke about the effect of US sanctions against Venezuela (around 10m22s): > Eva Bartlett: We met with, and I don't remember his title, and he was > with the health ministry. He was talking of the impact of sanctions on > heath and basically according to him, 80% of essential medicines are out > of stock because they cannot buy them. Now if you think about this, this > means that people that have chronic diseases or diseases that come with > age -- heart-related diseases, diabetes -- they aren't getting the > medicines they need. And this is exactly similiar to the situation in > Gaza where Israel prevents the entry of most vitally-needed goods. And > [...] also the US sanctions, they're designed to cripple. And Syria is > facing the same situation. So many countries are facing this very very > immoral policy of sanctioning the people. They say it's about > sanctioning "the evil leaders" of the country in question, but it's > about sanctioning the people: making their lives so hellish that they > then turn against their leadership. That's the ultimate goal. And the > irony is that these same leaders that are putting sanctions on these > countries at the same time cry for human rights and a humanitarian > crisis. One point Jimmy Dore makes is worth making clear: there are more poor people in the US than there are people in Venezuela. In 2016 Venezuela's population was estimated to be 31.6 million people. The Economic Populist blog[1] lists the US Census "supplemental poverty measure" as a proper count of poverty in the US: 49.1 million people. [1] http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/how-many-people-are-poor-united-states It makes sense that citizens expect their own government to take care of their needs before sending so-called "aid" abroad. Hence, Americans expect the American government to tend to Americans' needs before tending to the alleged "aid" sent to Venezuela. The so-called "foreign aid packages" sent to Venezuela are either a vast misprioritization of resources (for those who believe what the corporate media tells them) or simply not aid but something else masquerading as aid (for those who understand recent US history and believe the evidence coming from the alternative news media). Either way, it's not hard to understand why the US AID packages sent to Venezuela and claims of caring for the Venezuelan poor are gross misrepresentations of what is actually seen on the ground from reporters showing us the evidence for their case (a case that strongly contradicts what corporate-friendly news tells us). -J From mkb3 at icloud.com Tue Mar 19 04:17:33 2019 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:17:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= Message-ID: This statement resonated with me… I italicize it below; Every one of my allegations of influence is an interpretation based on facts: I’m connecting dots. Others may well connect the dots differently (and leftwingers will say that Israel reflects U.S. global interests). I’d argue that the sum and substance of this record is that the Israel lobby is essentially the foreign ministry of Israel in the capital of the most powerful country in the world and it exists, as it has stated itself, to make sure that there is no daylight between the US government and Israel. And if you think that has ever meant changing Israeli policy, I have a bridge to sell you. It means shifting U.S. policy. From. https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/accept-criticize-israel/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 04:48:53 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:48:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C92E821-1609-46F0-BA20-BBDE0E0F7E6F@gmail.com> Here’s an answer, from a dozen years ago: https://chomsky.info/20060328/ > On Mar 18, 2019, at 11:17 PM, Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This statement resonated with me… I italicize it below; > > Every one of my allegations of influence is an interpretation based on facts: I’m connecting dots. Others may well connect the dots differently (and leftwingers will say that Israel reflects U.S. global interests). I’d argue that the sum and substance of this record is that the Israel lobby is essentially the foreign ministry of Israel in the capital of the most powerful country in the world and it exists, as it has stated itself, to make sure that there is no daylight between the US government and Israel. And if you think that has ever meant changing Israeli policy, I have a bridge to sell you. > > It means shifting U.S. policy. > > > From. https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/accept-criticize-israel/ > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Mar 19 11:07:59 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 06:07:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] impeachment In-Reply-To: References: <0000000000009869b405842abe2f@google.com> <006c01d4dc05$cd3b4db0$67b1e910$@comcast.net> <00ce01d4dc3a$64ad9b60$2e08d220$@comcast.net> <963BE07D-2B65-4C17-A686-E7101CF7C10A@gmail.com> <7EA7EF22-A2E0-462E-8800-1048E7F033C4@gmail.com> <215A71DA-00CF-495C-A5CE-BD3C628ACEB8@gmail.com> <153E1D30-108E-4404-A2B4-6970BCCC00BA@gmail.com> <44C5509A-A54A-4C3D-8293-4A9D0AAB0709@gmail.com> Message-ID: Here's an idea for expanding the "spectrum of acceptable opinion." Now that "democratic socialism" has become an accepted part of mainstream discourse, let's add "democratic anti-imperialism" to the mix, as the foreign policy of "democratic socialism." Let's use the Congressional vote to end the Yemen war as a recruiting poster, like Bernie has been a recruiting poster for "democratic socialism." Let's use this to try to rehabilitate anti-imperialism as a mainstream American idea. You can be a suburban soccer Mom and be an anti-imperialist. It's the Golden Rule applied to countries. "Do unto other countries as you would have other countries do unto you. That is the whole Torah; the rest is explanation." === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > The populist uprising continues and grows, at home and abroad. > > See Brexit, les gilets jaunes, M5S/Lega government - and the vast efforts > expended by US media to convince us that anti-elite sentiment in the US can > be contained by the two dominant parties: > > “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit > the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within > that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That > gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the > time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits > put on the range of the debate.” > [Noam Chomsky] > > Rosa Luxemburg, murdered by a social democratic government a century ago, > said on the contrary, “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to > proclaim loudly what is happening.” > > What is happening now is that anti-neolib/anti-neocon sentiment - populism > - in the US is expanding and slipping out of elite control. > > That’s the source of hysterical attacks on Ilhan Omar, AOC, Tulsi Gabbard, > et al. > > > > > On Mar 18, 2019, at 6:03 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > Trump has clearly fallen into the hands of the neocons. Bolton, Pompeo, > Abrams. Can't get any more neocon than that. > > > > If there's something we could do in such a situation in the future, why > don't we do it now? Why haven't we done it already? What is that thing that > we could do? Let's do it now. > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:56 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Yes, it was. > > > > We should see that the winner does not fall into the hands of the > neocons and neolibs who ran the previous administrations. > > > > On Mar 18, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > > >> > >> The election of Trump was, after a fashion, a populist uprising. > >> > >> What, if anything, could we do to have more influence over the outcome > of the next such populist uprising? > >> > >> === > >> > >> Robert Reuel Naiman > >> Policy Director > >> Just Foreign Policy > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> A. Lincoln (himself rather good at fooling people) is supposed to have > said (in a burst of optimism), > >> "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people > all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” > >> > >> But the American ascendency has perhaps got better at it in a century > and a half. > >> > >> It will be harder for the populist uprising to succeed, but the 'major > parties’ will probably not be able to stop it > >> - tho’ they’re willing to risk a lot of damage to try. > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mar 18, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Well, "all of the above." > >> > > >> > But the way our elections work, the clamor doesn't lead to the > outcome. > >> > > >> > Obama ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. > >> > > >> > Trump ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them. > >> > > >> > So, by itself, the clamor isn't doing squat. If we want to get > different outcomes, we need to do something else besides merely trying to > fan the flames of the clamor. > >> > > >> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:11 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > >> > Quite agree with the eggs/basket problem. > >> > > >> > But remember who it was who withdrew US troops from SE Asia two > generations ago. > >> > > >> > Someone equally unlikely may withdraw US troops from SW Asia. > >> > > >> > But it probably won’t result from a deal in a clapped-out Congress. > >> > > >> > It will probably result form a popular (populist) demand for the > abandonment of Obama/Bush neolib/neocon policies - a demand already > underway. (It elected Trump.) > >> > > >> > That’s why the US political establishment is so determined to focus > popular attention on Trump: it distracts from the policies people actually > object to - more war and more inequality… > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the > time. But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in > that basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that > unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems > talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just > focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two > issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as > evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for > those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying. > It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying > on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking > Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end > the Yemen war. > >> > > > >> > > That's why we did this alert today: > >> > > > >> > > Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the > Saudi War in Yemen > >> > > > https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen > >> > > > >> > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > > > https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210¬if_t=live_video > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > Tulsi Gabbard. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, > who is going to do it? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the > calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to > on this stuff. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump > or one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, > unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who > they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're > elected. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on > the Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. > Second of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might > send a useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're > going to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at > it. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> === > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Robert Reuel Naiman > >> > > >> Policy Director > >> > > >> Just Foreign Policy > >> > > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> > > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >> > > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >> > > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high > crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section > four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s > silly to spend time doing so. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes > will continue. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the > ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) > want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s > meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic > elite - the one-percent - whose agent that establishment is. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that > he represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war > provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the > Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and > reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like > Pompeo and Bolton achieved power. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since > Calvin Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of > the previous administrations, with largely verbal changes. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the > melodrama of a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about > their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic > well-being of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for > all, and free education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost > them money. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> —CGE > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson < > davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Bob, > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy ! > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> David J. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > >> > > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM > >> > > >>> To: David Johnson > >> > > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > >> > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. > One thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other > thing is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., > her line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting, > psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that > they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is > not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work > effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it - > like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule > over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is > potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House > Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The > moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The > Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC > doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are > catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear > dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi. > A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that > ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So > she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real > fight among House Democrats about impeachment. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi > and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" > expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. > In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side > and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC > Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi > and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork > in it, it's done. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that > there was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of > support for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but > opposing singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you > want to have a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. > Have it be against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just > singling out Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened > because of the uprising. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. > So we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's > totalitarian rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to > efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> === > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman > >> > > >>> Policy Director > >> > > >>> Just Foreign Policy > >> > > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> > > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >> > > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >> > > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ; > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the > Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage > switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to > the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is > off the table, impeachment is off the table “. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her > INFLUENCE and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( > via corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES > make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment > resolution. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> David J. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto: > peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via > Peace-discuss > >> > > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM > >> > > >>>> To: C G Estabrook > >> > > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh > >> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the > House. A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged > resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM > AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor > insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> See here: > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War > >> > > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656 > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> === > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman > >> > > >>>> Policy Director > >> > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > >> > > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> > > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >> > > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via > Peace-discuss wrote: > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war > American president would have been hanged." > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of > course Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under > Nuremberg’s defintion. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> —CGE > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh < > noreply+feedproxy at google.com> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Ian Welsh > >> > > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats > >> > > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT > >> > > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said: > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless > there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t > think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s > just not worth it. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching > George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent > with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be > pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted > by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs > include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers > (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.) > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats > have control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the > Senate, but impeachment is certainly possible. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Why would they want to? > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the > period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually > nothing done, except by executive fiat. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate > months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, > corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: > there isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans > control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get > most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t > pass for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of > that spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans > “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made > for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly > can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru > the mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news > cycle, impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at > the very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting > from being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even > put everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly > profiting from his Presidency. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached. > Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about > consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.) > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in > danger of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, > but I hope I’m wrong. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, > but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh. > >> > > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. > Email delivery powered by Google > >> > > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, > United States > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >> > > >>>>> 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 > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > > >> 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 > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Mar 19 11:28:20 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 06:28:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <1C92E821-1609-46F0-BA20-BBDE0E0F7E6F@gmail.com> References: <1C92E821-1609-46F0-BA20-BBDE0E0F7E6F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Oh, look. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. https://twitter.com/AIPAC/status/1106333603796054018 Maybe we should do a campaign urging her not to go. Wouldn't this be a great opportunity for her to prove that it's not "all about the Benjamins"? Do the right thing, Nancy. Prove those anti-Semites wrong. Prove to the anti-Semites that it's not all about the Benjamins. Skip AIPAC like the presidential candidates are doing. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:49 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Here’s an answer, from a dozen years ago: > > https://chomsky.info/20060328/ > > > On Mar 18, 2019, at 11:17 PM, Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > This statement resonated with me… I italicize it below; > > > > Every one of my allegations of influence is an interpretation based on > facts: I’m connecting dots. Others may well connect the dots differently > (and leftwingers will say that Israel reflects U.S. global interests). I’d > argue that the sum and substance of this record is that the Israel lobby is > essentially the foreign ministry of Israel in the capital of the most > powerful country in the world and it exists, as it has stated itself, to > make sure that there is no daylight between the US government and Israel. > And if you think that has ever meant changing Israeli policy, I have a > bridge to sell you. > > > > It means shifting U.S. policy. > > > > > > From. https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/accept-criticize-israel/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Mar 19 12:34:16 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 07:34:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters Message-ID: "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Mar 20 01:37:45 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:37:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert Naiman wrote: > "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > do us any -- it's terrible. > > Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > Bernie Sanders: Yes. Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > that still your position? > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > current AUMFs. > > 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. So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Mar 20 01:39:06 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 01:39:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Need for more military spending? Message-ID: >From The New York Times: Why America Needs a Stronger Defense Industry Investing in the sector means more jobs at home and improved security abroad. By Peter Navarro Mr. Navarro is an assistant to the president and the director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. March 19, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/trump-defense-industry.html From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Mar 20 02:25:48 2019 From: galliher at illinois.edu (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:25:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Need for more military spending? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Peter Kent Navarro (born July 15, 1949) is an American economist who currently serves as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Industrial Policy, Director of the White House National Trade Council, a newly created entity in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government, which was then folded into the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, a new role established by executive order on April 29, 2017. A professor emeritus of economics and public policy at the Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, Navarro is the author or co-author of over a dozen books, including Death by China … A strong proponent of reducing U.S. trade deficits, Navarro is well known as a critic of Germany and China and has accused both nations of currency manipulation.” Wikipedia > On Mar 19, 2019, at 8:39 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From The New York Times: > > Why America Needs a Stronger Defense Industry > Investing in the sector means more jobs at home and improved security abroad. > > By Peter Navarro > Mr. Navarro is an assistant to the president and the director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. > March 19, 2019 > > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/trump-defense-industry.html > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Mar 20 03:40:36 2019 From: galliher at illinois.edu (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 22:40:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, March 19 Message-ID: The guest is James Manrique of CCVA: "The Champaign County Voters Alliance (or CCVA) is a local non-profit organization dedicated to increasing the Voter Turnout in Champaign County by as much as possible. In doing so we hope to create a more representative democracy of citizens. "As an organization, we are strictly nonpartisan. We strive to invite all political opinions to the table for an open and honest discussion of what it means to be a citizen of this county. We strive to educate the citizens of this county on the options they have available to them. We will not endorse any specific candidate. "If you have any questions for us, or if you would like to volunteer, please email: " From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 04:15:05 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 23:15:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Need for more military spending? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A pretty good example of why what might be a sensible "economic nationalism" policy is undermined by militarism. On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:26 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > "Peter Kent Navarro (born July 15, 1949) is an American economist who > currently serves as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and > Industrial Policy, Director of the White House National Trade Council, a > newly created entity in the executive branch of the U.S. federal > government, which was then folded into the Office of Trade and > Manufacturing Policy, a new role established by executive order on April > 29, 2017. A professor emeritus of economics and public policy at the Paul > Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, Navarro is the > author or co-author of over a dozen books, including Death by China … A > strong proponent of reducing U.S. trade deficits, Navarro is well known as > a critic of Germany and China and has accused both nations of currency > manipulation.” Wikipedia > > > > On Mar 19, 2019, at 8:39 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > From The New York Times: > > > > Why America Needs a Stronger Defense Industry > > Investing in the sector means more jobs at home and improved security > abroad. > > > > By Peter Navarro > > Mr. Navarro is an assistant to the president and the director of the > Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. > > March 19, 2019 > > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/trump-defense-industry.html > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Wed Mar 20 05:39:02 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:39:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] HR1384 (Rep. Jayapal's Medicare for All bill) is now officially published on congress.gov Message-ID: <31fa01f0-38ab-b07c-cc3c-eef9f628b5d8@forestfield.org> The good news: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr1384%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1 is now returning an actual bill. The bad news: The PDF version of HR1384 is 120 pages long. HR676 was 29 pages long. You'll remember HR676 from being called the "gold standard" Medicare for All bill[1]; the bill that the Democrats never brought up for a vote even when they controlled Congress and the presidency, and the bill which the Democrats recently let slip away entirely for reassignment to another bill. Happy bedtime reading. [1] https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/22/single-payer-gold-standard-hr-676-rest-peace has the quite apt quote from Dr. Margaret Flowers of Health Over Profit for Everyone. This quote was given before HR1384 had been published as it was being drafted secretly. > “For the past 16 years, HR 676 was our gold standard bill defining a > national improved Medicare for All single payer healthcare system for > the United States,” said Margaret Flowers of Health Over Profit for > Everyone. “It was based on the 2003 Physicians Working Group proposal by > Physicians for a National Health Program.” > > “Now that the Democrats can no longer ignore that their base is > demanding a single payer health system, we have lost both HR 676 by > number and its status as the gold standard. From what we have heard, as > we have still not seen the text of the draft as promised, the new health > bill being written by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) has > an unnecessarily long transition period and maintains the for-profit > providers in the system. The delayed transition means more preventable > deaths and suffering. Keeping the for-profits means higher costs and > lower quality of care.” From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 08:24:16 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 03:24:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Robert Naiman wrote: > > "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > > supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > > enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > > > Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > > > Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > > > Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > > terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > > building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > > do us any -- it's terrible. > > > > Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > > think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > > > Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > > > Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > > past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > > strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > > position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > > U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > > that still your position? > > > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > > threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > > groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > > what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > > mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > > going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > > taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > > current AUMFs. > > > > 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. > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common > enemy: > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 09:23:05 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:23:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Need for more military spending? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Military Keynesianism, straight, no chaser. Maybe we could take this as evidence that the Green New Deal is important as a Keynesian counter-narrative that isn't linked to militarism and imperialism. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:15 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > A pretty good example of why what might be a sensible "economic > nationalism" policy is undermined by militarism. > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:26 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> "Peter Kent Navarro (born July 15, 1949) is an American economist who >> currently serves as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and >> Industrial Policy, Director of the White House National Trade Council, a >> newly created entity in the executive branch of the U.S. federal >> government, which was then folded into the Office of Trade and >> Manufacturing Policy, a new role established by executive order on April >> 29, 2017. A professor emeritus of economics and public policy at the Paul >> Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, Navarro is the >> author or co-author of over a dozen books, including Death by China … A >> strong proponent of reducing U.S. trade deficits, Navarro is well known as >> a critic of Germany and China and has accused both nations of currency >> manipulation.” Wikipedia >> >> >> > On Mar 19, 2019, at 8:39 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > From The New York Times: >> > >> > Why America Needs a Stronger Defense Industry >> > Investing in the sector means more jobs at home and improved security >> abroad. >> > >> > By Peter Navarro >> > Mr. Navarro is an assistant to the president and the director of the >> Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. >> > March 19, 2019 >> > >> > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/trump-defense-industry.html >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 galliher at illinois.edu Wed Mar 20 10:11:20 2019 From: galliher at illinois.edu (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 05:11:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’ > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > Robert Naiman wrote: >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? >> >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. >> >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- >> >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't >> do us any -- it's terrible. >> >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? >> >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. >> >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? >> >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is >> that still your position? >> >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those >> current AUMFs. >> >> 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. > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 10:16:27 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 05:16:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the > appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for > ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons > per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United > States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's > fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse > about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the > contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And > there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized > by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the > United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we > could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars > that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them > in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a > way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them > to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting > rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from > U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out > of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. > participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war > against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely > that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about > ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in > Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk > about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. > from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the > government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. > is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you > think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going > to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle > East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might > even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the > Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It > wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But > we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on > Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the > tree. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Robert Naiman wrote: > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > >> that still your position? > >> > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > >> current AUMFs. > >> > >> 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. > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common > enemy: > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 10:19:05 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 05:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since 2015. Come back and report when you've finished your homework. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything > about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because > you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the >> appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for >> ‘drone strikes.’ >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons >> per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United >> States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's >> fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse >> about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the >> contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And >> there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized >> by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the >> United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we >> could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars >> that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them >> in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a >> way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them >> to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting >> rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from >> U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out >> of Afghanistan and Syria. >> > >> > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. >> participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war >> against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. >> > >> > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely >> that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about >> ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in >> Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk >> about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. >> from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the >> government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. >> is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. >> > >> > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do >> you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is >> going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. >> > >> > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle >> East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might >> even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the >> Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It >> wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But >> we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on >> Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the >> tree. >> > >> > === >> > >> > Robert Reuel Naiman >> > Policy Director >> > Just Foreign Policy >> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > Robert Naiman wrote: >> >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie >> >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common >> >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." >> > >> > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- >> > >> https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 >> > >> >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders >> >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? >> >> >> >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. >> >> >> >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- >> >> >> >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is >> >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a >> >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only >> doesn't >> >> do us any -- it's terrible. >> >> >> >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you >> >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? >> >> >> >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. >> >> >> >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? >> >> >> >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. >> > >> > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- >> > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ >> > >> >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the >> >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with >> >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your >> >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the >> >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is >> >> that still your position? >> >> >> >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional >> >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other >> >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically >> >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass >> >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of >> dollars >> >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and >> >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those >> >> current AUMFs. >> >> >> >> 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. >> > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common >> enemy: >> > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 10:24:01 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 05:24:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni children is on Snarl's hands. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. > drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to > death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since > 2015. > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > >> >> But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything >> about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because >> you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. >> >> === >> >> Robert Reuel Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the >>> appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for >>> ‘drone strikes.’ >>> >>> >>> > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons >>> per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United >>> States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's >>> fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse >>> about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the >>> contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And >>> there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized >>> by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the >>> United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we >>> could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars >>> that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them >>> in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a >>> way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them >>> to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting >>> rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from >>> U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out >>> of Afghanistan and Syria. >>> > >>> > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. >>> participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war >>> against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. >>> > >>> > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely >>> that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about >>> ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in >>> Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk >>> about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. >>> from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the >>> government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. >>> is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. >>> > >>> > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do >>> you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is >>> going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. >>> > >>> > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle >>> East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might >>> even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the >>> Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It >>> wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But >>> we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on >>> Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the >>> tree. >>> > >>> > === >>> > >>> > Robert Reuel Naiman >>> > Policy Director >>> > Just Foreign Policy >>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> > Robert Naiman wrote: >>> >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie >>> >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common >>> >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." >>> > >>> > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- >>> > >>> https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 >>> > >>> >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders >>> >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? >>> >> >>> >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. >>> >> >>> >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- >>> >> >>> >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is >>> >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a >>> >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only >>> doesn't >>> >> do us any -- it's terrible. >>> >> >>> >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if >>> you >>> >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? >>> >> >>> >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. >>> >> >>> >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? >>> >> >>> >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. >>> > >>> > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- >>> > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ >>> > >>> >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the >>> >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with >>> >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your >>> >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe >>> the >>> >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is >>> >> that still your position? >>> >> >>> >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional >>> >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these >>> other >>> >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using >>> basically >>> >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass >>> >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of >>> dollars >>> >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and >>> >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those >>> >> current AUMFs. >>> >> >>> >> 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. >>> > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common >>> enemy: >>> > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 10:46:29 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 05:46:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <4043FB80-6C57-40D6-8746-C68575E2E5F8@gmail.com> Did you get out on the wrong side of bed this morning, Bob, or are you just uncomfortable defending drone assassinations? > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:16 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Robert Naiman wrote: > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > >> that still your position? > >> > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > >> current AUMFs. > >> > >> 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. > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Mar 20 10:49:25 2019 From: galliher at illinois.edu (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 05:49:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <3CA7D572-5DC3-44CC-B26F-7D75CCDC1E21@illinois.edu> https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-times And Trump’s are at least as bad. —CGE > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:19 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since 2015. > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Robert Naiman wrote: > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > >> that still your position? > >> > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > >> current AUMFs. > >> > >> 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. > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Mar 20 10:56:41 2019 From: galliher at illinois.edu (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 05:56:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I respect, like Chomsky. I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni children is on Snarl's hands. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since 2015. > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Robert Naiman wrote: > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > >> > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > >> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > >> that still your position? > >> > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > >> current AUMFs. > >> > >> 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. > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 11:12:51 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 06:12:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I expect to > do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I respect, > like Chomsky. > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, notably > not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni > children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. > drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to > death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since > 2015. > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything > about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because > you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the > appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for > ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons > per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United > States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's > fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse > about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the > contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And > there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized > by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the > United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we > could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars > that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them > in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a > way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them > to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting > rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from > U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out > of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. > participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war > against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely > that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about > ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in > Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk > about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. > from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the > government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. > is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do > you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is > going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle > East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might > even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the > Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It > wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But > we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on > Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the > tree. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > >> > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only > doesn't > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > >> > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if > you > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > >> > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe > the > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > > >> that still your position? > > >> > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these > other > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using > basically > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of > dollars > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > > >> current AUMFs. > > >> > > >> 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. > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common > enemy: > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Mar 20 11:28:55 2019 From: galliher at illinois.edu (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 06:28:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump. I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge that made Trump president. That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign. —CGE > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I respect, like Chomsky. > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since 2015. > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > >> > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > >> > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > >> > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > > >> that still your position? > > >> > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > > >> current AUMFs. > > >> > > >> 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. > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 11:34:21 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 06:34:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl. The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people thought > that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump. > > I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge that > made Trump president. > > That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the last > administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more inequality) > - which he attacked in the campaign. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone here > can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. > > > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving > children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I expect > to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I respect, > like Chomsky. > > > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, notably > not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni > children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. > drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved > to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade > since 2015. > > > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand > anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, > because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the > appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for > ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as > weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in > the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly > because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing > intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile > strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise > missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not > particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're > running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker > college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone > strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but > banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were > advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who > talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I > would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part > of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and > Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. > participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war > against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely > that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about > ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in > Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk > about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. > from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the > government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. > is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do > you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is > going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the > Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we > might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case > of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. > It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. > But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on > Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the > tree. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the > Bernie > > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the > common > > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > > >> > > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility > or a > > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only > doesn't > > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > > >> > > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if > you > > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > >> > > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in > the > > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still > your > > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe > the > > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, > is > > > >> that still your position? > > > >> > > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the > unconventional > > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these > other > > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using > basically > > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of > dollars > > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force > and > > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of > those > > > >> current AUMFs. > > > >> > > > >> 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. > > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common > enemy: > > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 11:40:21 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 06:40:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <49EA9722-EED2-448E-B2F6-EF445E09AE62@gmail.com> Cooking sherry already this morning, Bob? > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:34 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl. > > The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump. > > I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge that made Trump president. > > That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. > > > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I respect, like Chomsky. > > > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since 2015. > > > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > > >> > > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > > >> > > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > >> > > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > > > >> that still your position? > > > >> > > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > > > >> current AUMFs. > > > >> > > > >> 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. > > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: > > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 11:43:30 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 06:43:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: <49EA9722-EED2-448E-B2F6-EF445E09AE62@gmail.com> References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> <49EA9722-EED2-448E-B2F6-EF445E09AE62@gmail.com> Message-ID: As I said before, anyone can check the archive, for all the times that Snarl championed Trump. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:40 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Cooking sherry already this morning, Bob? > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:34 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > > > > > You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl. > > > > The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people > thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump. > > > > I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge that > made Trump president. > > > > That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the > last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more > inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign. > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone here > can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. > > > > > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving > children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I > expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I > respect, like Chomsky. > > > > > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, > notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world > today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni > children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in > U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved > to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade > since 2015. > > > > > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand > anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, > because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the > appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for > ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as > weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in > the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly > because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing > intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile > strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise > missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not > particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're > running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker > college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone > strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but > banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were > advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who > talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I > would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part > of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and > Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. > participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war > against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems > likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk > about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war > in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to > talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the > U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid > to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that > the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far > do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is > going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the > Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we > might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case > of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. > It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. > But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on > Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the > tree. > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the > Bernie > > > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the > common > > > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > > > >> > > > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it > is > > > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility > or a > > > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only > doesn't > > > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > > > >> > > > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones > if you > > > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > >> > > > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in > the > > > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > > > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still > your > > > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you > believe the > > > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for > counterterrorism, is > > > > >> that still your position? > > > > >> > > > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the > unconventional > > > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these > other > > > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using > basically > > > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these > mass > > > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of > dollars > > > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force > and > > > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of > those > > > > >> current AUMFs. > > > > >> > > > > >> 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. > > > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one > common enemy: > > > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 11:58:41 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 06:58:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> <49EA9722-EED2-448E-B2F6-EF445E09AE62@gmail.com> Message-ID: You have a history of spreading lies about Greens, Bob (e.g., Jill Stein is "a Trokskyite [sic] cancer”): . > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > As I said before, anyone can check the archive, for all the times that Snarl championed Trump. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:40 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > Cooking sherry already this morning, Bob? > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:34 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl. > > > > The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump. > > > > I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge that made Trump president. > > > > That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign. > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. > > > > > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I respect, like Chomsky. > > > > > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since 2015. > > > > > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > > > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > > > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > > > >> > > > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > > > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > > > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > > > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > > > >> > > > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > > > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > >> > > > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > > > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > > > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > > > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > > > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > > > > >> that still your position? > > > > >> > > > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > > > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > > > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > > > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > > > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > > > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > > > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > > > > >> current AUMFs. > > > > >> > > > > >> 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. > > > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: > > > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 12:04:21 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:04:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Counterpunch=3A_=E2=80=9CSay_It_Ain?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZdCBTbywgSm9lOuKAnSB0aGUgTGF0ZXN0IE5lb2xpYmVyYWwgZnJv?= =?utf-8?q?m_the_War_and_Wall_Street_Party?= Message-ID: Look, even the Democrat-bashing hard left at Counterpunch has to concede that we accomplished something on the Saudi war in Yemen. [...] It remains to be seen if Democrats, and especially the Wall Street and war fans in the Democratic Party can muster anything like the pushback in Congress to Saudi Arabia’s immoral and illegal war in Yemen. The history of the two-party duopoly and their ties to the military-industrial-financial complex do not bode well. The Democrats’ record on war predates the attacks of September 2001. [...] https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/20/say-it-aint-so-joe-the-latest-neoliberal-from-the-war-and-wall-street-party/ MARCH 20, 2019“Say It Ain’t So, Joe:” the Latest Neoliberal from the War and Wall Street Party by HOWARD LISNOFF Like an annoying rash that could become dangerous, the Wall Street and war wing of the Democratic Party is back for yet another reprise in its run in the 2020 presidential primary and election. Think these representatives of wealth and war and power went away with the mid-evening swing toward doom of the New York Times polls on election night 2016? Think again… Hillary Clinton has been supplanted by Joe Biden. Power and wealth will not give up because those forces have an almost psychopathic hold on a wing of the Democratic Party, like an out-of-control vehicle careening to certain doom down a mountainside. In the 1970s, Biden was a fierce opponent of school busing toward the end of eliminating segregation in schools (”As Joe Biden Hints at presidential Run, Andrew Cockburn Looks at His ‘Disastrous Legislative Legacy,’” Democracy Now, March 13, 2019). During the 1980s and 1990s, Biden became a law and order legislator, teaming up with none other than Strom Thurmond and Bill Clinton to put people away and fueling the epidemic of mass jailing. Readers know the result that those “crime” fighting sprees had on the black community. Then, during the confirmation process of Clarence Thomas, Biden refused to call witnesses that would have supported Anita Hill’s testimony about Thomas. Biden made it impossible for students to discharge student debt, a move that saddles students with a lifelong burden of indebtedness as the price of a college or technical education, especially if students have not struck it rich in a global economy. Biden loves the banks and credit card companies, many that make their corporate homes in Biden’s tax-lenient state of Delaware. And in holding those accountable, who tanked the economy in 2007-2008, Biden let them off on a free ride while ordinary people suffered and the housing debacle exploded. In an opinion piece masquerading as fact, the Guardian reports in “Joe Biden faces tough choices on fundraising for potential 2020 run,” (March 14, 2019), that “middle-class Joe” faces hurdles because of his ties to Wall Street in an increasingly progressive Democratic Party. And here’s Joe Biden on the war for regime change in Iraq in “Biden’s votes, words on Iraq become hurdle in 2020,” (The Hill, February 8, 2019): “Biden backed the resolution giving former President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and he also praised the president in a Senate floor speech at the time for his handling of the case for war.” For decades, Democrats in Congress (and in the presidency) have almost universally supported war and the preparations for war. Whether this policy position changes with the Congressional Progressive Caucus remains to be seen, but the vast majority of Democrats have a really bad record on war. Besides the nationalistic chauvinism involved in war, there is the fealty to war industries among Democrats. It remains to be seen if Democrats, and especially the Wall Street and war fans in the Democratic Party can muster anything like the pushback in Congress to Saudi Arabia’s immoral and illegal war in Yemen. The history of the two-party duopoly and their ties to the military-industrial-financial complex do not bode well. The Democrats’ record on war predates the attacks of September 2001. With Biden’s record on war, integration, “crime,” a woman’s right to work unmolested, the Great Recession, and banks and credit card companies, readers might think Joe Biden is a throwback to the worst tendencies of neoliberal Democrats, and they’d be right on the money! *Howard Lisnoff* is a freelance writer. He is the author of Against the Wall: Memoir of a Vietnam-Era War Resister (2017). === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 12:08:35 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:08:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> <49EA9722-EED2-448E-B2F6-EF445E09AE62@gmail.com> Message-ID: If I said that Jill Stein was a Trot, that was a mistake and I apologize. That's a harsh charge. Trots have done a lot of damage to the Left in the United States. Will you, Snarl, now apologize for supporting Trump? === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:59 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > You have a history of spreading lies about Greens, Bob (e.g., Jill Stein > is "a Trokskyite [sic] cancer”): > > >. > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > > > > > As I said before, anyone can check the archive, for all the times that > Snarl championed Trump. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:40 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Cooking sherry already this morning, Bob? > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:34 AM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl. > > > > > > The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people > thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump. > > > > > > I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge > that made Trump president. > > > > > > That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the > last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more > inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign. > > > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone > here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. > > > > > > > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving > children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I > expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I > respect, like Chomsky. > > > > > > > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, > notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world > today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni > children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in > U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > > > > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have > starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and > blockade since 2015. > > > > > > > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand > anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, > because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at > the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for > ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as > weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in > the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly > because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing > intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile > strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise > missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not > particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're > running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker > college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone > strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but > banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were > advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who > talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I > would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part > of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and > Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. > participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war > against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems > likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk > about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war > in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to > talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the > U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid > to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that > the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How > far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy > Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the > Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we > might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case > of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. > It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. > But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on > Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the > tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the > Bernie > > > > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the > common > > > > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > > > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look > like? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, > it is > > > > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a > facility or a > > > > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not > only doesn't > > > > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using > drones if you > > > > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > > > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > > > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that > in the > > > > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach > with > > > > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that > still your > > > > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you > believe the > > > > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for > counterterrorism, is > > > > > >> that still your position? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the > unconventional > > > > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of > these other > > > > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using > basically > > > > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these > mass > > > > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of > dollars > > > > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military > Force and > > > > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of > those > > > > > >> current AUMFs. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one > common enemy: > > > > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 12:20:10 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:20:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> <49EA9722-EED2-448E-B2F6-EF445E09AE62@gmail.com> Message-ID: [Jeffrey St. Clair, editor of Counterpunch (& a friend), wrote correctly in as follows.] ...It so happens that Naiman, an alleged peace activist, is also the board president for the liberal website Truthout. Veteran readers of CounterPunch will recall Truthout from John Pilger’s acrid account of his head-on collision with their editors, who peevishly tried to cleanse his essay, “A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence,” of passages which might prove uncomfortable for the Democratic Party establishment. In a nasty email exchange with longtime Green organizer Kevin Zeese, who is now co-director of Popular Resistance, a group which grew out of the Occupy movement, Naiman sunk even further into the slime and threatened to expose Jill Stein as “a Trotskyite cancer.” On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: Oh, is today my day to be harassed by Green Party thugs? I’ll make you a deal: call off your dogs and I won’t further expose Jill Stein as a Trokskyite cancer. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org Slandering Stein and the Greens for being “Trotskyites” (or “Trokskyites,” in Naiman’s quaint verbiage) is as intellectually vapid as it is vile. Everyone knows that most of Leon’s former disciples in the US have long since morphed into neocons and thus can be spotted in Georgetown cafes polishing their resumés for slots on Hillary’s foreign policy team. “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein,” John Stauber told me. “These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance.” The hypocrisy of the Clintonoids is almost as audacious as their dissemination of lies about Jill Stein. Of course, their champion, the “pro-science” Hillary Clinton, ignores scientific facts and assessments whenever such considerations prove to be an even minor inconvenience to the headlong pursuit of her corporate agenda (cf, fracking). “People may wonder why suddenly everyone was saying Jill Stein is anti-vax — now we know it was a coordinated campaign,” Zeese told me. “Obviously, it also happens in the media because all of a sudden multiple news outlets were reporting the same thing. Had Stein said something that all these media outlets saw and ‘reported’ on — no, she had not said anything anti-vax, but they were coordinated. It was a planned slander attack.” Despite Clinton’s apparent lead in the polls, there’s a palpable sense of desperation in the air, as if her support is so soft that Hillary could sink another 10 points in the wake of one more email dump from Wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0. This explains why her surrogates are reaching so deeply into their bag of dirty tricks. The red-baiting of Stein and Baraka is a perfect expression of the Clinton machine’s political and moral bankruptcy... > On Mar 20, 2019, at 7:08 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > If I said that Jill Stein was a Trot, that was a mistake and I apologize. That's a harsh charge. Trots have done a lot of damage to the Left in the United States. > > Will you, Snarl, now apologize for supporting Trump? > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:59 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > You have a history of spreading lies about Greens, Bob (e.g., Jill Stein is "a Trokskyite [sic] cancer”): > > . > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > As I said before, anyone can check the archive, for all the times that Snarl championed Trump. > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:40 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Cooking sherry already this morning, Bob? > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:34 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl. > > > > > > The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump. > > > > > > I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge that made Trump president. > > > > > > That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign. > > > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. > > > > > > > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I respect, like Chomsky. > > > > > > > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > > > > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since 2015. > > > > > > > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > > > > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > > > > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > > > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > > > > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > > > > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > > > > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > > > > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > > > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > > > > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > > > > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > > > > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > > > > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > > > > > >> that still your position? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > > > > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > > > > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > > > > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > > > > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > > > > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > > > > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > > > > > >> current AUMFs. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: > > > > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > > > > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > > > > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 12:22:18 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Senate committee approves repeal of parental notification before minor has abortion Message-ID: A judge who heard waiver cases is calling for the parental notification law to be repealed. But the Catholic bishops - the same ones who failed to protect children from predatory priests - are calling on the legislature to reject the repeal effort. [...] The law’s other option, for a minor to ask a judge for permission to get an abortion, is not a viable alternative, but “an unnecessary hurdle for them,” said Susan Fox Gillis, a retired Cook County associate judge. Gillis told lawmakers she was one of two original judges who heard these cases, called judicial bypass hearings. “That law, in my experience as a judge tasked with deciding on these waivers, is unnecessary, overly punitive and places burdens on young women seeking health care. It should be repealed,” she said. “Each of the young women who came before me had a good reason for not sharing her decision with a parent.” [...] https://herald-review.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/illinois-senate-committee-approves-repeal-of-parental-notification-before-minor/article_ee246b4b-6a78-5520-a314-0b158aabffd6.html Illinois Senate committee approves repeal of parental notification before minor has abortion REBECCA ANZEL Capitol News Illinois 9 hrs ago SPRINGFIELD — Illinois Democrats are one step closer to repealing legislation requiring that a minor consult her parent or guardian before getting an abortion. The bill, sponsored by Chicago state Sen. Elgie Sims Jr. passed out of a Senate committee Tuesday without Republican support after about an hour of testimony and debate. Sims said the goal of his measure was not to “attack the role between parents and children,” as was suggested during the hearing, but to encourage families to have “authentic conversations.” “This bill is not an anti-family bill, it is a pro-family bill,” he said. “We cannot have and force inauthentic conversations between families. The state of Illinois has no place.” It would strike from state law the Parental Notification of Abortion Act of 1995, which requires a minor inform her parent or guardian of her intention to get an abortion. It does provide a minor an avenue to petition a circuit court to issue a waiver of that notification if she does not feel safe, for example, having a conversation with her parent or guardian. And there are exceptions for a minor if she is a victim of sexual abuse or neglect by an adult family member. Part of the General Assembly’s interest in passing the notification law, the body wrote, is that “Parental consultation is usually in the best interest of the minor and is desirable since the capacity to become pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom of an abortion are not necessarily related.” The law took effect only about five years ago after having been tied up in the courts. But proponents of repealing it, such as Hannah Baity, call the notification law “extremely dangerous.” Baity is a youth organizer with the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health, and testified in the Senate committee Tuesday. She told lawmakers not every teenager has a secure relationship with her parent, and they “cannot legislate healthy parent-child communications.” The law’s other option, for a minor to ask a judge for permission to get an abortion, is not a viable alternative, but “an unnecessary hurdle for them,” said Susan Fox Gillis, a retired Cook County associate judge. Gillis told lawmakers she was one of two original judges who heard these cases, called judicial bypass hearings. “That law, in my experience as a judge tasked with deciding on these waivers, is unnecessary, overly punitive and places burdens on young women seeking health care. It should be repealed,” she said. “Each of the young women who came before me had a good reason for not sharing her decision with a parent.” Those extra barriers are not inherently bad, though, state Sen. Jason Plummer, a Republican from Edwardsville, said. “We’re talking about the termination of a life, right,” he said. “And so, for there to be maybe a hurdle or two there, I don’t think as a society is necessarily the worst thing because … we’re talking about the termination of a heartbeat, and that’s a significant concern of mine.” Dawn Fitzpatrick, who works for the Archdiocese of Chicago, said the argument against repealing the law extends beyond the typical framing of “the pro-life, pro-choice distinction” and politics. As a parent, she said, “the only question is simply, should parents know” their child plans to get an abortion. The committee hearing began late, and debate put the meeting over its allotted time. Chairwoman Patricia Van Pelt, a Democratic senator from Chicago, cut the Republican legislators’ questions short to allow the committee to vote on Sims’ bill. The final tally was 8 to 4, along party lines. This legislative effort, Senate Bill 1594, is the first in a package of reproductive health measures proposed by Democrats in both chambers to receive a hearing in front of lawmakers. Its twin version is House Bill 2467. The other initiative would repeal Illinois’ abortion law and replace it with what backers and detractors say would be the most progressive reproductive health legislation in the nation. It is Senate Bill 1942 and House Bill 2495. The group of bills was announced by the sponsors — state Sens. Sims and Melinda Bush, from Grayslake, and state Reps. Kelly Cassidy, from Chicago, and Emanuel Chris Welch, from Hillside — at a news event at the American Civil Liberties Union headquarters in Chicago in early February. ACLU Executive Director Colleen Connell called the Notification Act “dangerous” in a written statement, and said she looks forward to the full Senate passing Sims’ bill. “Family communications cannot be mandated by law, they flow from trust and shared values among family members. A young person who does not want to communicate with a parent has a very good reason,” Connell said. “We need to trust youth in our state to make the health care decisions, without forcing them to risk their health and safety.” Jennifer Welch, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said in a statement that the committee’s vote Tuesday “shows that Illinois is ready to trust young people to have agency over their bodies. I’m optimistic that SB 1594 will pass the full Senate, and am grateful to Senator Elgie Sims for his leadership on this bill.” But Catholic Conference of Illinois called the vote “tragic” in a statement, and cited the state’s Department of Public Health data that shows the number of abortion procedures on minors has decreased since the Parental Notification of Abortion Act went into effect. The Conference represents the six bishops in the state. Their statement called on “the full Senate to use reason, support parents and their daughters, and strongly reject this appalling legislation.” “Current law makes it illegal for minors in Illinois to use an indoor tanning bed; buy cigarettes, alcohol or lottery tickets; or vote in an election. Are we to believe abortion is somehow less consequential than getting a tan?” the statement said. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 20 12:24:29 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:24:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> <49EA9722-EED2-448E-B2F6-EF445E09AE62@gmail.com> Message-ID: I apologized for what I wrote in my email to Keven Zeese after he attacked me, which he then spread all over. Where's your apology for championing Trump, Snarl? On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:20 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > [Jeffrey St. Clair, editor of Counterpunch (& a friend), wrote correctly > in < > https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/> > as follows.] > > ...It so happens that Naiman, an alleged peace activist, is also the board > president for the liberal website Truthout. Veteran readers of CounterPunch > will recall Truthout from John Pilger’s acrid account of his head-on > collision with their editors, who peevishly tried to cleanse his essay, “A > World War Has Begun: Break the Silence,” of passages which might prove > uncomfortable for the Democratic Party establishment. > > In a nasty email exchange with longtime Green organizer Kevin Zeese, who > is now co-director of Popular Resistance, a group which grew out of the > Occupy movement, Naiman sunk even further into the slime and threatened to > expose Jill Stein as “a Trotskyite cancer.” > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > Oh, is today my day to be harassed by Green Party thugs? > I’ll make you a deal: call off your dogs and I won’t further expose Jill > Stein as a Trokskyite cancer. > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > Slandering Stein and the Greens for being “Trotskyites” (or “Trokskyites,” > in Naiman’s quaint verbiage) is as intellectually vapid as it is vile. > Everyone knows that most of Leon’s former disciples in the US have long > since morphed into neocons and thus can be spotted in Georgetown cafes > polishing their resumés for slots on Hillary’s foreign policy team. > > “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat > progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein,” John Stauber told > me. “These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by > Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary > lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion > while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a > damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he > doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman > is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive > elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal > oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance.” > > The hypocrisy of the Clintonoids is almost as audacious as their > dissemination of lies about Jill Stein. Of course, their champion, the > “pro-science” Hillary Clinton, ignores scientific facts and assessments > whenever such considerations prove to be an even minor inconvenience to the > headlong pursuit of her corporate agenda (cf, fracking). > > “People may wonder why suddenly everyone was saying Jill Stein is anti-vax > — now we know it was a coordinated campaign,” Zeese told me. “Obviously, it > also happens in the media because all of a sudden multiple news outlets > were reporting the same thing. Had Stein said something that all these > media outlets saw and ‘reported’ on — no, she had not said anything > anti-vax, but they were coordinated. It was a planned slander attack.” > > Despite Clinton’s apparent lead in the polls, there’s a palpable sense of > desperation in the air, as if her support is so soft that Hillary could > sink another 10 points in the wake of one more email dump from Wikileaks or > Guccifer 2.0. This explains why her surrogates are reaching so deeply into > their bag of dirty tricks. The red-baiting of Stein and Baraka is a perfect > expression of the Clinton machine’s political and moral bankruptcy... > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 7:08 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > If I said that Jill Stein was a Trot, that was a mistake and I > apologize. That's a harsh charge. Trots have done a lot of damage to the > Left in the United States. > > > > Will you, Snarl, now apologize for supporting Trump? > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:59 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > You have a history of spreading lies about Greens, Bob (e.g., Jill Stein > is "a Trokskyite [sic] cancer”): > > > > < > https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/ > >. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As I said before, anyone can check the archive, for all the times that > Snarl championed Trump. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:40 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > Cooking sherry already this morning, Bob? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:34 AM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl. > > > > > > > > The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people > thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump. > > > > > > > > I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge > that made Trump president. > > > > > > > > That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the > last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more > inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign. > > > > > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone > here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. > > > > > > > > > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving > children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I > expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I > respect, like Chomsky. > > > > > > > > > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, > notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world > today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni > children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in > U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have > starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and > blockade since 2015. > > > > > > > > > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand > anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, > because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via > Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at > the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for > ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as > weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in > the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly > because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing > intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile > strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise > missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not > particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're > running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker > college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone > strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but > banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were > advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who > talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I > would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part > of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and > Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional > U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the > war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten > anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems > likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk > about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war > in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to > talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the > U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid > to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that > the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How > far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy > Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in > the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's > something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it > in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out > against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should > have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more > pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose > from the tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via > Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between > the Bernie > > > > > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against > the common > > > > > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > > > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > > > > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look > like? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, > it is > > > > > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a > facility or a > > > > > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not > only doesn't > > > > > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using > drones if you > > > > > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > > > > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that > in the > > > > > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach > with > > > > > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that > still your > > > > > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you > believe the > > > > > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for > counterterrorism, is > > > > > > >> that still your position? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the > unconventional > > > > > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of > these other > > > > > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using > basically > > > > > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these > mass > > > > > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions > of dollars > > > > > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military > Force and > > > > > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations > of those > > > > > > >> current AUMFs. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one > common enemy: > > > > > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > > > > > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > > > > > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 16:07:37 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:07:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters In-Reply-To: References: <458B8CE4-69F5-4981-B493-A4E438FD884D@illinois.edu> <906BC82B-382F-49E8-A6B2-5250F788D8CF@illinois.edu> <49EA9722-EED2-448E-B2F6-EF445E09AE62@gmail.com> Message-ID: <97E3EC85-C971-48DF-B09E-09B6F0656007@gmail.com> I championed [sic] Jill Stein. I did try to understand why people voted for Trump. It was a populist phenomenon. He attacked the neoliberal and neoconservative policies (more war and austerity) of the Obama administration. > On Mar 20, 2019, at 7:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > I apologized for what I wrote in my email to Keven Zeese after he attacked me, which he then spread all over. > > Where's your apology for championing Trump, Snarl? > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:20 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > [Jeffrey St. Clair, editor of Counterpunch (& a friend), wrote correctly in as follows.] > > ...It so happens that Naiman, an alleged peace activist, is also the board president for the liberal website Truthout. Veteran readers of CounterPunch will recall Truthout from John Pilger’s acrid account of his head-on collision with their editors, who peevishly tried to cleanse his essay, “A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence,” of passages which might prove uncomfortable for the Democratic Party establishment. > > In a nasty email exchange with longtime Green organizer Kevin Zeese, who is now co-director of Popular Resistance, a group which grew out of the Occupy movement, Naiman sunk even further into the slime and threatened to expose Jill Stein as “a Trotskyite cancer.” > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > Oh, is today my day to be harassed by Green Party thugs? > I’ll make you a deal: call off your dogs and I won’t further expose Jill Stein as a Trokskyite cancer. > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > Slandering Stein and the Greens for being “Trotskyites” (or “Trokskyites,” in Naiman’s quaint verbiage) is as intellectually vapid as it is vile. Everyone knows that most of Leon’s former disciples in the US have long since morphed into neocons and thus can be spotted in Georgetown cafes polishing their resumés for slots on Hillary’s foreign policy team. > > “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein,” John Stauber told me. “These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance.” > > The hypocrisy of the Clintonoids is almost as audacious as their dissemination of lies about Jill Stein. Of course, their champion, the “pro-science” Hillary Clinton, ignores scientific facts and assessments whenever such considerations prove to be an even minor inconvenience to the headlong pursuit of her corporate agenda (cf, fracking). > > “People may wonder why suddenly everyone was saying Jill Stein is anti-vax — now we know it was a coordinated campaign,” Zeese told me. “Obviously, it also happens in the media because all of a sudden multiple news outlets were reporting the same thing. Had Stein said something that all these media outlets saw and ‘reported’ on — no, she had not said anything anti-vax, but they were coordinated. It was a planned slander attack.” > > Despite Clinton’s apparent lead in the polls, there’s a palpable sense of desperation in the air, as if her support is so soft that Hillary could sink another 10 points in the wake of one more email dump from Wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0. This explains why her surrogates are reaching so deeply into their bag of dirty tricks. The red-baiting of Stein and Baraka is a perfect expression of the Clinton machine’s political and moral bankruptcy... > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 7:08 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > If I said that Jill Stein was a Trot, that was a mistake and I apologize. That's a harsh charge. Trots have done a lot of damage to the Left in the United States. > > > > Will you, Snarl, now apologize for supporting Trump? > > > > === > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:59 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > You have a history of spreading lies about Greens, Bob (e.g., Jill Stein is "a Trokskyite [sic] cancer”): > > > > . > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > As I said before, anyone can check the archive, for all the times that Snarl championed Trump. > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:40 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Cooking sherry already this morning, Bob? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:34 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl. > > > > > > > > The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment. > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > Policy Director > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump. > > > > > > > > I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge that made Trump president. > > > > > > > > That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign. > > > > > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. > > > > > > > > > > Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I respect, like Chomsky. > > > > > > > > > > I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni children is on Snarl's hands. > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since 2015. > > > > > > > > > > > > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Reuel Naiman > > > > > > > Policy Director > > > > > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > > > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > > > > > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie > > > > > > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common > > > > > > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- > > > > > > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > > > > > > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > > > > > > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > > > > > > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > > > > > > >> do us any -- it's terrible. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > > > > > > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- > > > > > > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > > > > > > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > > > > > > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > > > > > > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > > > > > > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > > > > > > >> that still your position? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > > > > > > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > > > > > > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > > > > > > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > > > > > > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > > > > > > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > > > > > > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > > > > > > >> current AUMFs. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: > > > > > > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > 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 From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 17:16:35 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:16:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Other countries stopping US crimes Message-ID: <6DFDDFAD-E32F-4529-8683-F5DED00A0287@gmail.com> https://news.antiwar.com/2019/03/19/german-court-govt-must-question-if-us-drone-strikes-are-legal/ From brussel at illinois.edu Wed Mar 20 21:55:13 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Other countries stopping US crimes In-Reply-To: <6DFDDFAD-E32F-4529-8683-F5DED00A0287@gmail.com> References: <6DFDDFAD-E32F-4529-8683-F5DED00A0287@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1B4D54E1-2785-4B7A-B0AE-74A56C54D330@illinois.edu> The Naimon position on the use of drones is grotesque, patently ridiculous. The U.S. is not at war with the countries it has been bombing/droning. It is well documented that innocents have been a large component of those killed by drone attacks. The rationale for individual attacks has been shown to be more than faulty, grudges of those interrogated often the reason, for example. It is murder with no recourse to any recognized juridical entity except in the inner sanctum of the administration. The comparison to attacks by ballistic missiles is laughable; we are making war but are not at war. That Bob Naimon wants to protect Sanders and Tulsi is understandable, for he thinks like a practical politician. Morality has little play here. —mkb > On Mar 20, 2019, at 12:16 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > https://news.antiwar.com/2019/03/19/german-court-govt-must-question-if-us-drone-strikes-are-legal/ > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Mar 21 00:17:38 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 19:17:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Other countries stopping US crimes In-Reply-To: <1B4D54E1-2785-4B7A-B0AE-74A56C54D330@illinois.edu> References: <6DFDDFAD-E32F-4529-8683-F5DED00A0287@gmail.com> <1B4D54E1-2785-4B7A-B0AE-74A56C54D330@illinois.edu> Message-ID: You're deliberately not hearing me. Perhaps that shouldn't be surprising. I spent a lot of time trying to do something about the drone strike issue. Lobbied Members and staff. Worked with Kucinich to introduce legislation. Went around giving talks. Wrote about it. Did alerts. Went on delegations to Pakistan and Yemen. Tried lots of different things. The "end the drone war" frame is not helping anything happen in DC right now. There is zero prospect of banning drones. There are no allies for this demand who can do anything in Washington. There is no prospect for finding any at the present juncture. U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan are part of the war in Afghanistan. The most likely way to end U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan is to end the war and pull U.S. troops out. That is a million times more likely than ending drone strikes in Afghanistan on their own. If we want to end the war in Afghanistan, we need a lot more engagement on it than we have now. Things are very very quiet. When Trump threatened to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and drawdown in Afghanistan, McConnell crammed through an amendment in the Senate against it. There was very little pushback. We did an alert. Nobody else did, as far as I recall. People should think about whether they're serious about ending wars or not. Ending wars requires engagement in the political process. That's how we got where we are on ending the Saudi war in Yemen. And we're not done yet. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:55 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > The Naimon position on the use of drones is grotesque, patently > ridiculous. The U.S. is not at war with the countries it has been > bombing/droning. It is well documented that innocents have been a large > component of those killed by drone attacks. The rationale for individual > attacks has been shown to be more than faulty, grudges of those > interrogated often the reason, for example. It is murder with no recourse > to any recognized juridical entity except in the inner sanctum of the > administration. The comparison to attacks by ballistic missiles is > laughable; we are making war but are not at war. > > That Bob Naimon wants to protect Sanders and Tulsi is understandable, for > he thinks like a practical politician. Morality has little play here. > > —mkb > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 12:16 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > https://news.antiwar.com/2019/03/19/german-court-govt-must-question-if-us-drone-strikes-are-legal/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Mar 21 12:37:14 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:37:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] N-G: At least 16 priests with area ties on Illinois list of alleged sex offenders Message-ID: I wonder that the Illinois Catholic Bishops dare to be so vocal against repeal of the parental notification law on abortion at the same time that this is coming out. Shouldn't they be keeping their heads down? http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2019-03-21/least-16-priests-with-area-ties-illinois-list-alleged-sex-offenders.html At least 16 priests with area ties on Illinois list of alleged sex offenders Thu, 03/21/2019 - 7:00am | Ben Zigterman CHAMPAIGN — At least 16 priests with area connections are among the nearly 400 Catholic clergy members and church staff in Illinois named in a report — released Wednesday by a Minnesota-based law firm — that accuses them of sexual misconduct. All had been previously mentioned on lists released by the Joliet, Peoria and Springfield dioceses, but Wednesday's report by attorney Jeff Anderson is the largest list of accused clergy in Illinois and includes where each priest served. It comes after a report in December by former Attorney General Lisa Madigan, which found that Illinois dioceses had only publicly identified 185 accused clergy out of the 690 it had been made aware were alleged to have committed sexual abuse. The new report accuses the Illinois dioceses of "orchestrating an institutional cover-up of enormous magnitude" by transferring and retaining alleged perpetrators. The Springfield, Peoria and Joliet dioceses all issued statements Wednesday about the report, explaining why some names on the list aren't on their own publicly available lists, either because they never received allegations or found them to be unsubstantiated or not credible. "The report is an impressive professional marketing brochure, but it does not represent, as Mr. Anderson suggests, a thorough and diligent review of the publicly available facts, and it is highly misleading and irresponsible," said Andrew Hansen, spokesman for the Springfield diocese. The report includes former Champaign Mayor Robert Dodd, who served parishes in Highland and Pana in the 1960s before leaving the priesthood in 1971. He was mayor from 1983 to '87, and in 1994, Dodd was named in a child sex abuse lawsuit, according to the report. His name was also on the Springfield diocese's list of clergy with substantiated cases of sexual abuse of a minor. Dodd died in 2013 in Champaign. The other local priests accused in the report include: Gordon Pillon. He has been accused by two people of sexually abusing them as children. He joined the ministry in California in the 1980s before joining the Peoria diocese in the early '90s. He worked at St. John's Catholic Chapel in Champaign in 2000 and at Sacred Heart in Farmer City in 2003. He was placed on leave in 2007 after the allegations were made. Lee Ryan. He served at St. Edmund in Watseka from 1992 to 2010, when he was accused of child sex abuse in 1974 at Providence Catholic High School in New Lenox and removed from ministry. He temporarily returned to the ministry in 2012, but was removed again later that year, according to the report. Ryan died in 2016. William Virtue. He was at Sacred Heart in Farmer City in 2002 and had moved on to the parish in Harmon the following year. The first accusations of child sex abuse against him were made in 1984. He allegedly repeatedly abused a 10-year-old boy in Mokena, according to a lawsuit filed in 2006, after which he was removed from the ministry in the Peoria diocese. After reports surfaced of him working in the Rockford diocese, he was later removed from all public ministry in 2009, according to the report. Jerry Pilon. He served at St. Anthony's in Hoopeston from 1993 to 1998. In 2009, he was accused of sexually abusing a child about 12 years earlier. After the allegation was made, Pilon was removed from the ministry, according to the report. Paul Dinan. He served at St. Mary's of Paxton from 1945 to 1954, 1974 to 1975 and 1979 to '80. He lived in Paxton during retirement from 1987 until his death in 1996. After he died, allegations of sexual abuse of a minor were made, according to the report. William Iserman. He served at St. Anthony's in Hoopeston in 1960 and was removed from the ministry in 1993 "due to allegations of abuse of a minor," according to the Peoria diocese. He then lived in Urbana from 1993 to 1994, according to the report. Iserman died in 1998. Anthony Meis. He served St. Joseph in Cabery from 1981 to 1988. He then served at Saints Mary and Joseph Church in Chebanse, where he allegedly sexually abused a child and then left in 1994, according to the report. He died in 2015. Thomas Miller. He worked at Schlarman High School in Danville from 1984 to 1988 and then at two different parishes in Peoria. In 2004, he was accused of sexually abusing a minor in 1979 while at a parish in Bloomington. More accusations followed, and in 2004, Miller was placed on leave. He was laicized in 2006. Phillip Dedera. He served at St. Mary's in Paxton from 1986 to 1988. He was removed from the ministry in 2002 after allegations of abuse from the 1970s were made public. Another man came forward in 2006, accusing Dedera of sexually abusing him more than 100 times at the age of 11 or 12. Another filed a lawsuit alleging Dedera offered him marijuana to help him forget an assault by another priest. Ronald Roth. He was the director of the Good Shepherd Apostolic House of Prayer in Urbana in 1977. He allegedly sexually abused three boys and a girl when he worked at parishes in New Mexico. In 1993, he was removed from the ministry after the Peoria diocese became aware of the lawsuit. Roth died in 2009. Oliver Walsh. He served at St. Peter's in Piper City from 1972 to 1975. After he died in 1975, he was accused of sexual abuse of a minor. The Joliet diocese has called the allegations credible, but they remain unresolved. Robert Creager. He served at Immaculate Conception near Pesotum from 1970 to 1974. He was removed from the ministry in 2002 after being accused of sexual misconduct with minors. Creager died in 2008. Francis Engels. He served at St. John in Champaign from 1963 to 1965. After being accused in 1993 of sexually abusing children in the 1970s and '80s, Engels acknowledged the encounter, but said the accuser had been over 18 years old. He was removed from the ministry that year. In 2005, Engels was sentenced to 10 years in a Wisconsin prison following a civil lawsuit alleging abuse in both Illinois and Wisconsin. Walter Breuning. He worked at St. Patrick's in Urbana from 1955 to 1959. Breuning was removed from the ministry in 2002 after allegations that he sexually abused a child 20 to 40 years earlier. Breuning has been named in three civil lawsuits, including one filed by two brothers claiming they were sexually abused in the late '60s to early '70s. Breuning died in 2009, according to the report. Bernard Tomaszewski. He served at Our Lady of Lourdes in Gibson City from 1925 to 1926, at St. Elizabeth's in 1935, in Tolono in 1936, in Colfax Township in 1937 and at St. Boniface Church in Seymour from 1938 to 1941. He was removed from the ministry in 1946 and is on the Peoria diocese's list of priests removed due to allegations of abuse of a minor. The report said Tomaszewski is believed to be dead. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 16:30:15 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] N-G: At least 16 priests with area ties on Illinois list of alleged sex offenders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1F1452DB-F46F-4790-87F6-11E7585FD9FA@gmail.com> Do you think the Illinois Catholic bishops (one an ex-student of mine) should be intimidated from taking principled stands by the publication of this information? —CGE > On Mar 21, 2019, at 7:37 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > I wonder that the Illinois Catholic Bishops dare to be so vocal against repeal of the parental notification law on abortion at the same time that this is coming out. Shouldn't they be keeping their heads down? > > http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2019-03-21/least-16-priests-with-area-ties-illinois-list-alleged-sex-offenders.html > > At least 16 priests with area ties on Illinois list of alleged sex offenders > Thu, 03/21/2019 - 7:00am | Ben Zigterman > CHAMPAIGN — At least 16 priests with area connections are among the nearly 400 Catholic clergy members and church staff in Illinois named in a report — released Wednesday by a Minnesota-based law firm — that accuses them of sexual misconduct. > > All had been previously mentioned on lists released by the Joliet, Peoria and Springfield dioceses, but Wednesday's report by attorney Jeff Anderson is the largest list of accused clergy in Illinois and includes where each priest served. > > It comes after a report in December by former Attorney General Lisa Madigan, which found that Illinois dioceses had only publicly identified 185 accused clergy out of the 690 it had been made aware were alleged to have committed sexual abuse. > > The new report accuses the Illinois dioceses of "orchestrating an institutional cover-up of enormous magnitude" by transferring and retaining alleged perpetrators. > > The Springfield, Peoria and Joliet dioceses all issued statements Wednesday about the report, explaining why some names on the list aren't on their own publicly available lists, either because they never received allegations or found them to be unsubstantiated or not credible. > > "The report is an impressive professional marketing brochure, but it does not represent, as Mr. Anderson suggests, a thorough and diligent review of the publicly available facts, and it is highly misleading and irresponsible," said Andrew Hansen, spokesman for the Springfield diocese. > > The report includes former Champaign Mayor Robert Dodd, who served parishes in Highland and Pana in the 1960s before leaving the priesthood in 1971. > > He was mayor from 1983 to '87, and in 1994, Dodd was named in a child sex abuse lawsuit, according to the report. His name was also on the Springfield diocese's list of clergy with substantiated cases of sexual abuse of a minor. > > Dodd died in 2013 in Champaign. > > The other local priests accused in the report include: > > Gordon Pillon. He has been accused by two people of sexually abusing them as children. He joined the ministry in California in the 1980s before joining the Peoria diocese in the early '90s. He worked at St. John's Catholic Chapel in Champaign in 2000 and at Sacred Heart in Farmer City in 2003. He was placed on leave in 2007 after the allegations were made. > > Lee Ryan. He served at St. Edmund in Watseka from 1992 to 2010, when he was accused of child sex abuse in 1974 at Providence Catholic High School in New Lenox and removed from ministry. He temporarily returned to the ministry in 2012, but was removed again later that year, according to the report. Ryan died in 2016. > > William Virtue. He was at Sacred Heart in Farmer City in 2002 and had moved on to the parish in Harmon the following year. The first accusations of child sex abuse against him were made in 1984. He allegedly repeatedly abused a 10-year-old boy in Mokena, according to a lawsuit filed in 2006, after which he was removed from the ministry in the Peoria diocese. After reports surfaced of him working in the Rockford diocese, he was later removed from all public ministry in 2009, according to the report. > > Jerry Pilon. He served at St. Anthony's in Hoopeston from 1993 to 1998. In 2009, he was accused of sexually abusing a child about 12 years earlier. After the allegation was made, Pilon was removed from the ministry, according to the report. > > Paul Dinan. He served at St. Mary's of Paxton from 1945 to 1954, 1974 to 1975 and 1979 to '80. He lived in Paxton during retirement from 1987 until his death in 1996. After he died, allegations of sexual abuse of a minor were made, according to the report. > > William Iserman. He served at St. Anthony's in Hoopeston in 1960 and was removed from the ministry in 1993 "due to allegations of abuse of a minor," according to the Peoria diocese. He then lived in Urbana from 1993 to 1994, according to the report. Iserman died in 1998. > > Anthony Meis. He served St. Joseph in Cabery from 1981 to 1988. He then served at Saints Mary and Joseph Church in Chebanse, where he allegedly sexually abused a child and then left in 1994, according to the report. He died in 2015. > > Thomas Miller. He worked at Schlarman High School in Danville from 1984 to 1988 and then at two different parishes in Peoria. In 2004, he was accused of sexually abusing a minor in 1979 while at a parish in Bloomington. More accusations followed, and in 2004, Miller was placed on leave. He was laicized in 2006. > > Phillip Dedera. He served at St. Mary's in Paxton from 1986 to 1988. He was removed from the ministry in 2002 after allegations of abuse from the 1970s were made public. Another man came forward in 2006, accusing Dedera of sexually abusing him more than 100 times at the age of 11 or 12. Another filed a lawsuit alleging Dedera offered him marijuana to help him forget an assault by another priest. > > Ronald Roth. He was the director of the Good Shepherd Apostolic House of Prayer in Urbana in 1977. He allegedly sexually abused three boys and a girl when he worked at parishes in New Mexico. In 1993, he was removed from the ministry after the Peoria diocese became aware of the lawsuit. Roth died in 2009. > > Oliver Walsh. He served at St. Peter's in Piper City from 1972 to 1975. After he died in 1975, he was accused of sexual abuse of a minor. The Joliet diocese has called the allegations credible, but they remain unresolved. > > Robert Creager. He served at Immaculate Conception near Pesotum from 1970 to 1974. He was removed from the ministry in 2002 after being accused of sexual misconduct with minors. Creager died in 2008. > > Francis Engels. He served at St. John in Champaign from 1963 to 1965. After being accused in 1993 of sexually abusing children in the 1970s and '80s, Engels acknowledged the encounter, but said the accuser had been over 18 years old. He was removed from the ministry that year. In 2005, Engels was sentenced to 10 years in a Wisconsin prison following a civil lawsuit alleging abuse in both Illinois and Wisconsin. > > Walter Breuning. He worked at St. Patrick's in Urbana from 1955 to 1959. Breuning was removed from the ministry in 2002 after allegations that he sexually abused a child 20 to 40 years earlier. Breuning has been named in three civil lawsuits, including one filed by two brothers claiming they were sexually abused in the late '60s to early '70s. Breuning died in 2009, according to the report. > > Bernard Tomaszewski. He served at Our Lady of Lourdes in Gibson City from 1925 to 1926, at St. Elizabeth's in 1935, in Tolono in 1936, in Colfax Township in 1937 and at St. Boniface Church in Seymour from 1938 to 1941. He was removed from the ministry in 1946 and is on the Peoria diocese's list of priests removed due to allegations of abuse of a minor. The report said Tomaszewski is believed to be dead. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 19:43:02 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:43:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The poets (& satirists) often get there first Message-ID: <5B26A774-0AFB-490A-927B-6F3602087259@gmail.com> https://consentfactory.org/2019/03/21/mueller-dammerung/ "Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president. They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who bragged about 'grabbing women by the pussy' and jabbered about building 'a big, beautiful wall' and making the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact that Donald Trump had zero experience in any political office whatsoever, was a loudmouth bigot, and was possibly out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people did not care. They were so disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment stooges like the Clintons, the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump in office, because, fuck it, what did they have to lose? "...The global capitalist ruling classes are putting down a populist insurgency, delegitimizing any and all forms of dissent from their global capitalist ideology and resistance to the hegemony of global capitalism. In the process, they are conditioning people to completely abandon their critical faculties and behave like twitching Pavlovian idiots who will obediently respond to whatever stimuli or blatantly fabricated propaganda the corporate media bombards them with..." From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 19:48:22 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:48:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Censorship of AWARE list References: Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: peace-owner at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Your message to Peace awaits moderator approval > Date: March 21, 2019 at 2:46:11 PM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > > Your mail to 'Peace' with the subject > > The poets (& satirists) often get there first > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Post to moderated list > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel > this posting, please visit the following URL: > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/confirm/peace/03461af509e9206bd3ad4fcab403b478f7a6e120 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Mar 21 20:45:47 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Censorship of AWARE list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not me. I don't believe in censorship. I'm a First Amendment absolutist, like the ACLU. I don't understand this at all. I thought Carl was totally justified in threatening to sue the Public I. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:48 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *peace-owner at lists.chambana.net > *Subject: **Your message to Peace awaits moderator approval* > *Date: *March 21, 2019 at 2:46:11 PM CDT > *To: *cgestabrook at gmail.com > > Your mail to 'Peace' with the subject > > The poets (& satirists) often get there first > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Post to moderated list > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel > this posting, please visit the following URL: > > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/confirm/peace/03461af509e9206bd3ad4fcab403b478f7a6e120 > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 10:53:22 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 05:53:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Unnecessary deaths References: <1553209436681.2edfb63e-5c50-4407-b75e-8d834e1f3aff@bf10b.hubspotemail.net> Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Lauren Merz > Subject: Beth's baby 👶 > Date: March 21, 2019 at 6:15:22 PM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Reply-To: lauren.merz at liveaction.org > > > Hi C. G., > > I hope you are having a good evening! > > I’m not sure if you’ve seen this before, but I wanted to send you this baby photo we received from a young mother named Beth to encourage you: > > > C. G., this precious baby wasn’t supposed to be alive today. That’s because, when Beth was 20 weeks pregnant, she was scared. > > Beth was terrified she wasn’t ready to be a mom, that all of her hopes and dreams that she planned on wouldn’t come true if she gave birth to the child growing in her womb. > > The fear she felt eventually overwhelmed her and she decided to have an abortion. But, something incredible happened that stopped her from scheduling the appointment… > > Shortly after Beth made her decision to abort her baby girl, she was scrolling through Facebook and came across one of our Abortion Procedures videos. > > Beth watched in horror as our video explained what abortion would actually do to her child. At her stage of pregnancy, the abortionist would have killed her baby girl by brutally tearing her apart, limb by limb. > > After watching our video, she realized she could never do that to her own innocent baby and chose LIFE instead. > > A few months later Beth gave birth to her precious baby girl. She sent us an email with a picture of her new baby – the same picture I’m sending you tonight. She told us how grateful she was that she saw our videos before it was too late. > > C. G., I’ve been thinking about this photo and Beth’s story a lot lately. > > I often hear from many weary pro-life friends who ask, “can we really ever end this violence? Can I really do anything that will ever make a difference?" > > C. G., this photo serves as the answer. Beth wanted us to share this story with you so you know the impact your activism on behalf of preborn children makes in real lives. > > Her baby girl is alive today for one reason: because of the pro-life individuals like you who selflessly support Live Action’s work financially, or share our videos, articles, and graphics online and on social media. > > C. G., I want you to know that you can and ARE making a true difference in this fight. > > You are the reason our videos have been seen by countless pregnant moms who were considering abortion and chose life...women like Beth. > > You are the reason our videos have been watched by tens of millions of Americans, forever changing the way they view the killing of preborn babies. > > Together, we will put an end to the senseless killing of the innocent and make it unthinkable. > > We will stop Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry from exploiting vulnerable young women, like Beth. > > And we will build a world where preborn children are loved and their mothers are encouraged and empowered to choose life. > > C. G., we are so grateful to have you alongside us. Your support and generosity enable us to share our heart-changing and life-saving content with the people who need to see it most every day. > > Thank you for all you do to end this grave human rights abuse - and to save more precious children like Beth’s sweet little girl. > > For life, > > Lauren Merz > Director of Development > Live Action > > P.S. Beth’s baby isn’t the only child our videos have saved. Several young mothers or their friends and family have contacted Live Action to tell us they were going to have an abortion, but changed their minds after seeing one of our Abortion Procedures videos. > > Even more encouraging, in a recent Facebook survey we conducted of 1,000 people, 54 people said they knew of a life that saved because of a Live Action video or article! > > None of this would be possible without our generous pro-life supporters, just like you. > > C. G., you can reach more people with the truth that changes hearts and minds by becoming a committed monthly donor with Live Action. Please consider making your first gift today to support our life-saving work by clicking here: https://give.liveaction.org/life-defender/ > Live Action 2200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 102 PMB 111, Arlington, VA 22201 > > You received this message because you are subscribed to Requests for Support from Live Action. > If you would rather not receive this type of email, you can update your email preferences here or unsubscribe from all future emails. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 11:21:20 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 06:21:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] US Completely Invalidates All Of Its Own Arguments About Crimea References: <139971992.6170.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Caitlin Johnstone > Date: March 21, 2019 at 8:17:43 PM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Subject: [New post] US Completely Invalidates All Of Its Own Arguments About Crimea > > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > US Completely Invalidates All Of Its Own Arguments About Crimea > by Caitlin Johnstone > Well the worst Putin Puppet of all time is at it again, this time tweeting that the US must recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel despite the fact that the Israeli occupation of that Syrian land is illegal under international law. > > "After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!", Trump's tweet reads. > > Russian parliament member Oleg Morozov made a statement in response to Trump's proclamation, saying that "Russia will never agree to recognize Israeli sovereignty in the Golan. Trump is damaging the international community and the Arab world”. > > Trump's tweet follows a report last week that his administration has deliberately softened the US government's language concerning the Golan Heights in a way that is favorable to Israel, referring to the region as "Israeli-controlled" instead of "Israeli-occupied" as it had always previously been. This is just one more of the many, many ways in which the facts demonstrate a virulently anti-Russia posture by the Trump administration in the face of a funhouse mirror mass media narrative which claims the exact opposite, another of those facts being the administration's sanctions and hawkish posturing over the Russian Federation's 2014 annexation of Crimea. > > We fully support our great friend and ally Israel. As the President said, it’s time for the U.S. to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over Golan Heights. https://t.co/GtL6x45CYO > > — John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) March 21, 2019 > > "More red meat for Trump's Evangelical base," tweeted journalist Mark Ames in response to Trump's tweet. "Doubt anyone will care about US hypocrisy since hypocrisy is what defines us—rewarding Israel's armed seizure/colonization/annexation of Golan; yet punishing Russia's Crimea annexation, which at least had local majority-Russian support." > > "How do the delusional @Maddow #Russiagate peddlers explain that 'Putin puppet' @realDonaldTrump still refuses to recognize Russian annexation of Crimea, but just did Netanyahu’s bidding and recognized illegal Israeli annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights?" asked Electric Intifada's Ali Abunimah. > > “Putin will use this as a pretext to justify Russia’s annexation of Crimea,” former US ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk told the New York Times. “The Israeli right will use it as a pretext for Israel’s annexation of the West Bank. It is a truly gratuitous move by Trump.” > > "Twaddle," tweeted the Global Policy Institute's George Szamuely in response to Indyk's NYT statement. "Putin doesn't need any 'pretext to justify' anything. The return of Crimea to Russia took place 5 years ago, via a referendum in accordance with the constitution of Crimea. Putin won't bring up the Golan because the two situations are so different." > > US Duplicity Over Golan Demolishes Posturing on Crimea > > Excellent breakdown of the fact that every single argument made by the US about Crimea has been completely invalidated by its position on the Golan Heights.https://t.co/zmx3B1I2PC > > — Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) March 21, 2019 > > In an excellent article for Strategic Culture titled "US Duplicity over Golan Demolishes Posturing on Crimea" written prior to Trump's statement, journalist Finian Cunningham breaks down the differences and similarities between Washington's position on Crimea versus the Golan Heights, and explains how its current push to validate Israel's annexation completely invalidates its own arguments about Crimea. I highly recommend checking out Cunningham's article in its entirety for anyone who's interested in this, as its arguments are largely unassailable, but here are some excerpts: > > Israel has occupied the western part of the Golan since 1967 as a spoil from that war. In 1981, Tel Aviv formally annexed the Syrian territory. However, the UN Security Council in 1981, including the US, unanimously condemned the annexation as illegal. The resolution mandates Israel to return the land to Syria which has historical claim to the entire Golan. The area of 1,800 square kilometers is a strategic elevation overlooking the northern Jordan Valley. > > If Washington confirms its recent indications of recognizing the Golan as officially part of Israel, the development would mark an egregious flouting of international law. > > ... > > Claims by Washington and the European Union of “illegal annexation” of Crimea by Russia are the central basis for five years of economic sanctions imposed on Moscow. Those sanctions have contributed to ever-worsening tensions with Russia and the build-up of NATO forces along Russia’s borders. > > > > Those claims are, however, highly contestable. The people of Crimea voted in a legally constituted referendum in March 2014 to secede from Ukraine and to join the Russian Federation. That referendum followed an illegal coup in Kiev in February 2014 backed by the US and Europe against a legally elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. Historically, Crimea has centuries of shared cultural heritage with Russia. Its erstwhile position within the state of Ukraine was arguably an anomaly of the Cold War and subsequent break-up of the Soviet Union. > > > > In any case, there is scant comparison between the Golan Heights and Crimea, save, that is, for the latest hypocrisy in Washington. While Crimea and its people are arguably historically part of Russia, the Golan Heights are indisputably a sovereign part of Syria which was forcibly annexed by Israeli military occupation. > > > > > > The discrepancy between the White House's positions on Crimea and the Golan Heights can easily be explained by the nature of America's overarching imperialist agenda. The US-centralized empire, of which Israel is an inseparable part, operates much like the creature in the 1958 movie The Blob: its goal is to absorb as many geostrategic territories into itself as possible, growing larger and stronger with every absorption. The Golan Heights is a resource rich region dominated by plutocratic interests and provides Israel with a third of its water supply, as well as a strategically valuable location for attacking and undermining the unabsorbed nation of Syria and its unabsorbed Iranian and Hezbollah allies. > > Crimea, meanwhile, is another highly strategically important location, but its control shifted outside the blob of empire when its people chose Moscow over Kiev. The blob of empire is strengthened and enlarged with the addition of the Golan Heights, but weakened and shrunk with the loss of Crimea. > > We see this dynamic playing out all over the globe. Bolsonaro's election in Brazil was a huge victory for the blob, strengthening its ability to attack and absorb other unabsorbed nations like Venezuela. This is why John Bolton recently tweeted that "We’re proud to make Brazil a Major Non-NATO Ally, and look forward to working with them on Venezuela, Iran, and China. A great meeting with a strong new strategic partner!", and why Bolsonaro refused to deny the possibility of Brazil aiding the US in military action against Venezuela during his press conference with the president the other day. > > The tight network of US allies which functions as an empire on foreign policy is constantly attempting to expand roughly eastward and southward, and to undermine the interests of any government which presents an obstacle to that expansion. Many people have grown very rich by the exploitative and frequently violent nature of this expansion, in precisely the way colonialists and conquistadors grew very rich with the exploitative and frequently violent expansion of European power into the rest of the world hundreds of years ago. The alliance of secretive government agencies and thieving plutocrats has been ensuring a concurrent metastasizing of corporate and government power along the waves of that expansion, and it won't stop until either the empire is overthrown, the world is completely absorbed, or these bastards get us all killed in a nuclear holocaust with their reckless imperialist aggression. > > _________________________ > > Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | March 22, 2019 at 1:17 am | Tags: #Trump, Crimea, Golan, Golan Heights, israel, Russia | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Bw > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/03/22/us-completely-invalidates-all-of-its-own-arguments-about-crimea/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Mar 22 15:15:45 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:15:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] How the U.S. Creates 'Sh*thole' Countries: A Review Message-ID: <008f01d4e0c2$1fcf3ee0$5f6dbca0$@comcast.net> How the U.S. Creates 'Sh*thole' Countries: A Review Danny Haiphong, BAR contributor 20 Mar 2019 https://blackagendareport.com/themes/newsclick/assets/images/facebook.png https://blackagendareport.com/themes/newsclick/assets/images/twitter.png https://blackagendareport.com/themes/newsclick/assets/images/mail.png Dr. Cynthia McKinney is the author of "How the US Creates Shithole Countries" Dr. Cynthia McKinney is the editor of "How the US Creates Shithole Countries" Cynthia McKinney and her co-writers have produced an important literary tool for anti-imperial agitation and education. "Trump's use of 'sh*thole' offered an opportunity to explain the realities of U.S. foreign policy to the people." Cynthia McKinney has been on the frontlines of the struggle for global peace for decades. Known first as a dissenting voice in Congress and then for her work in exposing the truth about the U.S.-led wars on the Palestinian, Libyan, and Black people here in the United States, McKinney's voice is seldom heard in the arena of corporate politics. She has long understood that one of the most critical tasks of this historical juncture is the mobilization of the masses to stop the endless wars waged by U.S. Empire. In a series of essays written by activists, scholars, and analysts from across the political spectrum, McKinney shows through practice what this should look like. Her new book How the U.S. Creates 'Sh*thole' Countries is an invaluable piece of literature that seeks to transform anti-war ideas into an anti-war movement. The book challenges the liberal ethos that Trump's vulgar "sh*thole" comments in January of 2018 were some aberration or detached from reality. Liberal elites work hard to erase the realities of racism and war by claiming the moral high ground of respectability politics. Their criticisms of Trump center around his foul language to distract from the role that they play in the creation of "sh*thole" countries. McKinney and the rest of the authors condemn Trump for characterizing Haiti and African nations such as Nigeria as "sh*tholes while attempting to answer a question that neither racist demagogues nor liberal elites dare to ask: What exactly causes the massive suffering experienced around the world? "How the U.S. Creates 'Sh*thole' seeks to transform anti-war ideas into an anti-war movement." The text wastes no time in identifying the U.S. as the primary source of the "sh*thole" conditions found in every corner of the planet. U.S.-led devastation is broken down into four sections. The first section lays bare the broad effects of U.S. imperialism worldwide and the millions of people that the system has displaced, impoverished, and murdered. More specific cases are presented in the next section, including the U.S. role in the colonial occupation of the Palestinian people and the contemporary impact of the U.S.' use of Agent Orange chemical warfare and landmines to kill and poison the Vietnamese people. The last two sections deal with the propaganda mill of the U.S. Empire. Contributors end the text by conducting a thorough analysis of how the U.S. is itself a "sh*thole" country. What makes this book special is the purpose behind it. From the first page, it is obvious that the authors are not merely attempting to teach others about the horrors of U.S. foreign policy. This is an important function of the text but not its central one. As McKinney herself explains in the introduction, "This book presents new analyses of old narratives that wither under scientific scrutiny and calls for a new, innovative vision for US policy created by courageous leadership, like that shown everyday by the contributors of this book." "U.S. imperialism has displaced, impoverished, and murdered millions." Indeed, the book unites a range of voices with years of experience in the struggle for peace against a backdrop of endless American warfare. Brian Wilson, who lost his legs blocking munitions transfers to Nicaragua during the U.S. contra wars, details his visit to El Salvador where he learned of the extensive role that the U.S. played in the proxy war (1980-1992) on the FMLN and the massive displacement and death roll left in its wake. Former editor of the New African magazine Baffour Ankomah analyzes the corporate plunder of several African nations and its role in creating massive levels of impoverishment and instability in the resource-rich continent. In Ghana, for example, Ankomah explains how large multinational mining corporations have expatriated over half of their profits while paying zero dollars in taxes back to the national government. Such an outcome, according to Ankomah, is the rule rather than the exception for most African nations. Human rights lawyer Christopher Black and this writer contribute analysis regarding why the truth about U.S. empire is so hard to disseminate. The first two sections of the book detailing the extensive U.S. record of creating "sh*tholes" abroad are thus intimately connected to the last two sections which concern the deplorable conditions right here in the center of the imperial albatross and the imperial propaganda that facilitates popular obedience to the destruction. This book makes clear that it is impossible to understand the suffering of the masses in nations such as Somalia without studying and condemning the narratives that justify the policies that create "sh*thole" conditions. As Christopher Black explains, ". . . propaganda is used to provoke war, to sustain war, to turn other people, declared to be the enemy, into beings that need to be killed. It robs them of their humanity, of their kinship with us, their desires and dreams, and makes them into vermin to be destroyedwith ease and even joy in the killing." "Corporate plunder creates massive levels of impoverishment and instability on the African continent." >From Puerto Rico to Ghana, Venezuela to Palestine, the U.S. has spread the misery of its "sh*thole" model in the service of corporate profit and military domination. Despite this reality, the peace movement in the U.S. remains small and ineffectual. How the US Creates 'Sh*thole' Countries seeks to reverse the contradiction between the dire conditions before us and the relatively stagnant political waters in which we swim. It is an effective intervention which offers a wealth of public information to counter a system based on the accumulation of private wealth from the spoils of war. Regardless of whatever one thinks of Trump as an individual, his use of "sh*thole" offered an opportunity to explain the realities of U.S. foreign policy to the people and the contributors of the book seized the time. It is only fitting that the plight of the U.S. poor concludes the text. U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike pay dearly for the wars that cause "sh*thole" conditions at home and abroad. The deplorable conditions of poor people and working people in the U.S. continue to worsen. Mired in debt and unable to afford healthcare and the necessities of life, poor and working people in the U.S. have little stake in the wars carried out on the poor in distant nations. Contributing authors such as Richard Falk and Robin Eastman Abaya make this abundantly clear. "Propaganda makes people into vermin to be destroyed." How the U.S. Creates 'Sh*thole' Countriesis a must-read for those looking to politically educate themselves and others about the causes and effects of the U.S. Empire's foreign policy. This is the first step toward developing and strengthening a much-needed peace movement in this period where the crisis of U.S. imperialism threatens to engulf the world in endless, potentially nuclear wars with the rising powers to the East, Russia and China. The warmongers, the war-makers, and the corporate elite will not promote this book. It will be up to the forces of peace and justice in the world to elevate its message and popularize its analysis before it is too late. Danny Haiphong is an activist and journalist in the New York City area. He and Roberto Sirvent are co-authors of the forthcoming book entitled American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News- From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror (Skyhorse Publishing, Release Date: April 2nd, 2019 ). He can be reached at wakeupriseup1990 at gmail.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 2188 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2524 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 929 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 113023 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 23 00:20:26 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 20:20:26 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] The Mueller Report Is In. They Were Wrong. We Were Right. References: <139971992.6178.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <3DF6752F-5AA9-48C0-8FA8-DC432973155A@gmail.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Caitlin Johnstone > Date: March 22, 2019 at 7:33:06 PM EDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Subject: [New post] The Mueller Report Is In. They Were Wrong. We Were Right. > > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > The Mueller Report Is In. They Were Wrong. We Were Right. > by Caitlin Johnstone > The Robert Mueller investigation which monopolized political discourse for two years has finally concluded, and his anxiously awaited report has been submitted to Attorney General William Barr. The results are in and the debate is over: those advancing the conspiracy theory that the Kremlin has infiltrated the highest levels of the US government were wrong, and those of us voicing skepticism of this were right. > > The contents of the report are still secret, but CNN's Justice Department reporter Laura Jarrett has told us all we need to know, tweeting, "Special Counsel Mueller is not recommending ANY further indictments am told." On top of that, William Barr said in a letter to congressional leaders that there has been no obstruction of Mueller's investigation by Justice Department officials. > > So that's it, then. A completely unhindered investigation has failed to convict a single American of any kind of conspiracy with the Russian government, and no further indictments are coming. The political/media class which sold rank-and-file Americans on the lie that the Mueller investigation was going to bring down this presidency were liars and frauds, and none of the goalpost-moving that I am sure is already beginning to happen will change that. > > Say it again: Mueller has indicted *zero* Americans for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election, which was central impetus for the Special Counsel in the first place. Anyone who denies this is an abject liar https://t.co/gRQdr01ZCv > > — Michael Tracey (@mtracey) March 22, 2019 > > It has been obvious from the very beginning that the Maddow Muppets were being sold a lie. In 2017 I wrote an article titled "How We Can Be Certain That Mueller Won’t Prove Trump-Russia Collusion", saying that Mueller would continue finding evidence of corruption "since corruption is to DC insiders as water is to fish", but he will not find evidence of collusion. If you care to take a scroll through the angry comments on that article, just on Medium alone, you will see a frozen snapshot of what the expectations were from mainstream liberals at the time. They had swallowed the Russiagate narrative hook, line and sinker, and they believed that the Mueller investigation was going to vindicate them. It did not. > > I've been saying Russiagate is bullshit from the beginning, and I've been called a Trump shill, a Kremlin propagandist, a Nazi and a troll every day for saying so by credulous mass media-consuming dupes who drank the Kool Aid. And I've only taken a fraction of the flack more high profile Russiagate skeptics like Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey have been getting for expressing doubt in the Gospel According to Maddow. The insane, maniacal McCarthyite feeding frenzy that these people were plunged into by nonstop mass media propaganda drowned out the important voices who tried to argue that public energy was being sucked into Russia hysteria and used to manufacture support for dangerous cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower. > > Just think what we could have done with that energy over the last two years. Think how much public support could have been poured into the sweeping progressive reforms called for by the Sanders movement, for example, instead of constant demands for more sanctions and nuclear posturing against Russia. Think how much more attention could have been drawn to Trump's actual horrific policies like his facilitation of Saudi butchery in Yemen or his regime change agendas in Iran and Venezuela, his support for ecocide and military expansionism and the barbarism of Jair Bolsonaro and Benjamin Netanyahu. Think how much more energy could have gone into beating back the Republicans in the midterms, reclaiming far more House seats and taking the Senate as well, gathering momentum for a presidential candidacy that truly threatens Trump instead of 9,000 primary candidates who will probably be selected by superdelegates after the first ballot when there's too many of them to establish a clear majority under the new rules. > > . at caitoz sums up: "Mock the Russiagaters.Mock them ruthlessly, and never, ever let them forget the horrible thing that they did. Never stop making fun of them and reminding them how stupid and crazy they acted during this humiliating period of US history." https://t.co/rWTs9vHYPe > > — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 22, 2019 > > We must never let them forget what they did or what they cost us all. We must never let mainstream Democrats forget how crazy they got, how much time and energy they wasted, how very, very wrong they were and how very, very right we were. > > Never stop reminding them of this. Never stop mocking them for it. Never stop mocking their idiotic Rachel Maddow worship. Never stop mocking the Robert Mueller prayer candles. Never stop making fun of the way they blamed all their problems on Susan Sarandon. Never stop reminding them of those stupid pink vagina hats. Never stop mocking them for elevating Louise Mensch and Eric Garland. Never stop mocking them for creating the fucking Krassenstein brothers. > > Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life. Going forward, authority and credibility rests solely with those who kept clear eyes and clear heads during the mass media propaganda blitzkrieg, not with those who were stupid enough to believe what they were told about the behaviors of a noncompliant government in a post-Iraq invasion world. The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world. > > _______________________ > > Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | March 22, 2019 at 11:32 pm | Tags: #Trump, caitlin johnstone, Mueller, news, Politics, Russia, Russiagate | Categories: Article, News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1BE > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/03/22/the-mueller-report-is-in-they-were-wrong-we-were-right/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 23 12:41:37 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:41:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The World Labor Hour Message-ID: https://youtu.be/HsNfqBA3_8M From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Mar 23 15:02:15 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:02:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Panel at UFL today at 3 Message-ID: >From my friend Nina Paley: *Does Sex Matter?* *Gender Identity vs. Material Reality* *Saturday (today) March 23rd, 3-5 p.m.* *Urbana Free Library, Lewis Auditorium (downstairs)* A transwoman, a detransitioner, and a radical feminist walk into a Library…Speaking from different perspectives on modern gender identity politics, these three panelists agree that all people broadly deserve civil rights protections. But should gender identity replace sex as a legal category? Women—particularly marginalized, imprisoned, lesbian, and abused women—pay the highest price for this trend, as sex-based protections and resources are rolled back in the name of “inclusivity.” Despite their unwavering support for individual expression, each speaker has faced repercussions for critically analyzing gender identity, including threats of violence, professional blacklisting, and loss of friendships. They join for this event in the hope it will encourage wider civil and respectful discussion. No lives will be harmed or erased while exploring these topics. *Panelists:* *Corinna Cohn* is an adult transsexual from Indianapolis. Having undertaken hormone therapies and sex reassignment surgery as a teenager, Corinna addresses the responsibilities accrued by a male inhabiting the social role of women, and what young people should know before making an irreversible commitment to transition. *Carey Callahan *is a detransitioned woman and family therapist from Ohio. She explores the role of sexism in the rise of youth referrals for gender dysphoria and the portrayal of detransitioners in the media. *Nina Paley* is an animator from Urbana, best known for feature films *Sita Sings the Blues* and *Seder-Masochism*. An outspoken critic of both censorship and sexism, she has been no-platformed and blacklisted locally and abroad for saying penises are male. *Moderator:* *Traci Nally *is Executive Vice President and General Counsel for News-Gazette Media. For over 30 years, she has worked in the areas of defamation, access to public records and meetings, protection of reporters’ newsgathering privileges, and other first amendment and free speech related matters. *This program is not sponsored by the Urbana Free Library* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 23 20:23:56 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: New Mexico Senate defeats extreme abortion bill References: <1553357351489.ca47dee3-6d28-481a-9d4f-daa07029a88f@bf10a.hubspotemail.net> Message-ID: <70EE1C2D-DCEE-4A14-A30D-74A8084E7B63@gmail.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Live Action News > Date: March 23, 2019 at 12:11:30 PM EDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Subject: New Mexico Senate defeats extreme abortion bill > Reply-To: info at liveaction.org > > > > > > New Mexico Senate defeats extreme abortion bill > In a surprising vote, the New Mexico Senate voted down HB-51, an extreme abortion bill that sought to ensure legal abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, remove parental notification, and force doctors to commit abortions despite their moral objections. In a vote of 18 in favor to 24 against, eight Democrats voted against the bill. Read more > > A SPECIAL NOTE FROM LILA ROSE > > Hi C. G., > > We are happy to keep you up-to-date with the latest stories from Live Action News. > > I wanted to send you a quick note to let you know how you can reach more Americans with our pro-life journalism by joining Live Action as a Life Defender - a committed monthly donor. > > Right now, we need 250 Life Defenders to join us by March 31st to fuel the constant daily education that is vital to changing hearts and minds. > > The DAILY publishing at Live Action News, as well as this newsletter you are reading today, are only made possible through generous people, like you, who give $5, $10, or $25. Your ongoing monthly gift today will not only keep these stories coming, but also help us open more eyes and change minds to be fully pro-life. > > Every dollar you give means we can reach an additional 34 people a month - meaning your monthly commitment can move hundreds, even thousands, of people to become pro-life and join you in our fight to make abortion unthinkable. > > > > Thank you for reading - and for all you do to defend vulnerable preborn children. > > For life, > > Lila Rose > President & Founder > Live Action > > MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS > > > > Beto backs late-term abortion, doubles down against protecting abortion survivors > Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), who is running for president, reiterated his extreme pro-abortion stance during a campaign event in Cleveland. Read more > > > > After ignoring abortion survivors, pro-abortion lawmakers fight to save kittens > In a stunning display of misplaced priorities, after failing to protect infant survivors of abortion with a Senate vote, and after the 18th time the Democrats have blocked a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the House, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is introducing a bill to protect…kittens. Read more > > > > Rival cosmetics companies unite to support Planned Parenthood > Rival cosmetics companies, MAC and Benefit, will be teaming up this spring to donate to Planned Parenthood, America’s number one provider of abortions. Read more > > > > Facebook inexplicably censors articles on pregnancy, abortion complications > Facebook is now blocking purely-informational links from a neutral pregnancy website that detail subjects such as early fetal development and present a balanced view on topics such as abortion pill reversal, according to a tip from a concerned reader that LifeSiteNews has independently verified. Read more > > > > Maine Democrats push bill to allow non-physicians to commit abortions > Maine’s House Speaker Sara Gideon and Governor Janet Mills, both Democrats, are introducing a bill that will allow non-physicians to commit abortions. Read more > > > > Moms are turning their babies' ultrasound images into nail art > Baby’s first picture has taken on a whole new meaning thanks to ultrasound machines...Now, some moms are getting creative and carrying their babies’ first pictures around 24/7 as nail art. Read more > > > > 5 pro-life ways to fight abortion in 5 minutes or less > Even though pro-lifers are fired up and ready to fight for the right to life, it can be hard to fit time into already busy schedules to help the cause. Here are different ways you can help women and their babies in just five minutes or less. Read more > > > > > > > > > Live Action News is the publishing arm of Live Action > > Live Action 2200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 102 PMB 111 Arlington VA 22201 > > You received this email because you are subscribed to Live Action News Weekly Updates from Live Action. > > Update your email preferences to choose the types of emails you receive. > > Unsubscribe from all future emails > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkb3 at icloud.com Sat Mar 23 21:29:39 2019 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:29:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?It_isn=27t_just_Netanyahu=E2=80=A6?= Message-ID: <47BD33DF-DDC8-4B72-8447-448925E3E284@icloud.com> Swimming against the current—Could this be said in the USA? Netanyahu Isn't the Problem. The Israeli People Are The apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure By Gideon Levy Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, March 10, 2019. POOL/רויטרס It’s not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or at least not just him. One cannot blame one person, influential and powerful as he may be, for every evil, as his opponents and enemies do. The racism, extreme nationalism, divisiveness, incitement, hatred, anxiety and corruption is all because of Netanyahu, they say. But it’s not so. His sins are innumerable and the damage he’s done immeasurable, and it would be great to have him out of our lives, but blaming everything on him is deceiving and a shirking of responsibility. If Netanyahu is to blame for everything, then if we could just be rid of him, everything will go back to being good. Not so. If Netanyahu is to blame for everything, then we had nothing to do with the current state of affairs. Not so. Netanyahu has caused heavy damage, but behind him there’s a nation and voters and other elected officials, most of them not much different than him, and a public and a society and media outlets. The blame rests with them at least as much, if not more. Simply put, the people are the problem. Netanyahu has voters.. There are those who vote for his kind. There are those who have hated Arabs long before Netanyahu. There are those who despise blacks, detest foreigners, exploit the weak and look down their noses at the whole world – and not because of Netanyahu. There are those who believe they are the chosen people and therefore deserve everything. There are those who think that after the Holocaust, they are permitted to do anything. There are those who believe that Israel is tops in the world in every field, that international law doesn’t apply to it, and that no one can tell it what to do. There are those who think Israelis are victims – always victims, the only victims – and that the whole world is against us. There are those who are convinced that Israel is allowed to do anything, simply because it can. There are those who believe in the sword alone. There are those who champion aggression, in the territories and on the roads, and who don’t know any other language. There are unprecedented levels of ignorance. There’s brainwashing to an extent unknown in a democracy. Is Netanyahu responsible for all of this? Come on. The problem is the atmosphere, the spirit of the times, the values and outlooks that have become ingrained here during decades of Zionism. Netanyahu did not sow them and they will not be uprooted when he goes.. Racism and xenophobia are deeply entrenched here, far more deeply than any Netanyahu. How could this be ascribed to the man on Balfour Street when it began long before he was chosen to be an envoy in Washington? The apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure; it probably won’t even be dented. One of the most racist nations in the world cannot complain about its prime minister’s racism. When public discourse is dominated by the right, is that because of Netanyahu? When the media is controlled by a single narrative, in which the right becomes the center, is that his fault? How much can one dismiss a people’s wishes, beliefs, values and choices? How can this all be blamed on one politician? That there is no ideological alternative has nothing to do with Netanyahu. That the election campaign is dealing only with nonsense is not because of him. That the center-left is afraid to utter a word is not his fault. Netanyahu is the best thing to ever happen to Israeli politics – you can dump everything on him; he’s an inciter who sows fear and spreads lies, but too many are buying what he’s selling and his opponents are too few. Don’t make him the scapegoat – we are to blame. The problem is not Netanyahu, but the admiration for him and the vacuum of opposition around him. Incitement is for the weak. If Israelis are so easily swayed by their prime minister, the problem is with them, not with him. Netanyahu, whom people call cynical, directs his poison at places where he knows he’ll be able to spread it easily. It would be great if some local Nelson Mandela would arise, a brave leader with vision who would change the country’s basic values and lead a revolution. But no such person has been born here, and it’s doubtful he ever will be. I wish Netanyahu would disappear. But don’t say he ruined everything and that once he’s gone all will flourish. Netanyahu is Israel, and Israel is Netanyahu, even if Benny Gantz succeeds him. From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Mar 23 21:46:34 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:46:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?It_isn=27t_just_Netanyahu=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <47BD33DF-DDC8-4B72-8447-448925E3E284@icloud.com> References: <47BD33DF-DDC8-4B72-8447-448925E3E284@icloud.com> Message-ID: Of course it's true, there and here. But this is how people organize. And, whether we like it or not, in the country in which we live, which is the United States, not Israel, bashing Netanyahu is an advance. Check this out: Beto O’Rourke Slams Benjamin Netanyahu, Saying Israeli Has “Openly Sided With Racists” https://theintercept.com/2019/03/20/beto-orourke-slams-benjamin-netanyahu-saying-israeli-openly-sided-racists/ Note that the fine print is that Beto wouldn't let himself be drawn out on such radical questions as whether U.S. aid to UNRWA should be restored. Still, what a headline. That's an advance. There is a shift. Of course, we should press for more. The plates are shifting. Let's see how far we can push. On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 4:30 PM Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Swimming against the current—Could this be said in the USA? > > > Netanyahu Isn't the Problem. The Israeli People Are > > The apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure > > By Gideon Levy > > > Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting in > Jerusalem, March 10, 2019. POOL/רויטרס > > It’s not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or at least not just him. One > cannot blame one person, influential and powerful as he may be, for every > evil, as his opponents and enemies do. The racism, extreme nationalism, > divisiveness, incitement, hatred, anxiety and corruption is all because of > Netanyahu, they say. > > But it’s not so. His sins are innumerable and the damage he’s done > immeasurable, and it would be great to have him out of our lives, but > blaming everything on him is deceiving and a shirking of responsibility. > > If Netanyahu is to blame for everything, then if we could just be rid of > him, everything will go back to being good. Not so. If Netanyahu is to > blame for everything, then we had nothing to do with the current state of > affairs. Not so. Netanyahu has caused heavy damage, but behind him there’s > a nation and voters and other elected officials, most of them not much > different than him, and a public and a society and media outlets. The blame > rests with them at least as much, if not more. > > Simply put, the people are the problem. Netanyahu has voters.. There are > those who vote for his kind. There are those who have hated Arabs long > before Netanyahu. There are those who despise blacks, detest foreigners, > exploit the weak and look down their noses at the whole world – and not > because of Netanyahu. There are those who believe they are the chosen > people and therefore deserve everything. > > There are those who think that after the Holocaust, they are permitted to > do anything. There are those who believe that Israel is tops in the world > in every field, that international law doesn’t apply to it, and that no one > can tell it what to do. > > There are those who think Israelis are victims – always victims, the only > victims – and that the whole world is against us. There are those who are > convinced that Israel is allowed to do anything, simply because it can. > > There are those who believe in the sword alone. There are those who > champion aggression, in the territories and on the roads, and who don’t > know any other language. There are unprecedented levels of ignorance. > > There’s brainwashing to an extent unknown in a democracy. Is Netanyahu > responsible for all of this? Come on. > > The problem is the atmosphere, the spirit of the times, the values and > outlooks that have become ingrained here during decades of Zionism. > > Netanyahu did not sow them and they will not be uprooted when he goes.. > Racism and xenophobia are deeply entrenched here, far more deeply than any > Netanyahu. How could this be ascribed to the man on Balfour Street when it > began long before he was chosen to be an envoy in Washington? > > The apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure; > it probably won’t even be dented. One of the most racist nations in the > world cannot complain about its prime minister’s racism. > > When public discourse is dominated by the right, is that because of > Netanyahu? When the media is controlled by a single narrative, in which the > right becomes the center, is that his fault? How much can one dismiss a > people’s wishes, beliefs, values and choices? How can this all be blamed on > one politician? > > That there is no ideological alternative has nothing to do with Netanyahu. > > That the election campaign is dealing only with nonsense is not because of > him. That the center-left is afraid to utter a word is not his fault. > > Netanyahu is the best thing to ever happen to Israeli politics – you can > dump everything on him; he’s an inciter who sows fear and spreads lies, but > too many are buying what he’s selling and his opponents are too few. Don’t > make him the scapegoat – we are to blame. > > The problem is not Netanyahu, but the admiration for him and the vacuum of > opposition around him. Incitement is for the weak. If Israelis are so > easily swayed by their prime minister, the problem is with them, not with > him. Netanyahu, whom people call cynical, directs his poison at places > where he knows he’ll be able to spread it easily. > > It would be great if some local Nelson Mandela would arise, a brave leader > with vision who would change the country’s basic values and lead a > revolution. But no such person has been born here, and it’s doubtful he > ever will be. I wish Netanyahu would disappear. But don’t say he ruined > everything and that once he’s gone all will flourish. Netanyahu is Israel, > and Israel is Netanyahu, even if Benny Gantz succeeds him. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 24 01:00:32 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:00:32 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Russiagate Skeptics Rightly Boast About Being Proven 100% Correct References: <139971992.6181.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <4F14C279-73F0-4C60-BCC5-E8914CB2136B@gmail.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Caitlin Johnstone > Date: March 23, 2019 at 7:39:03 PM EDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Subject: [New post] Russiagate Skeptics Rightly Boast About Being Proven 100% Correct > > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > Russiagate Skeptics Rightly Boast About Being Proven 100% Correct > by Caitlin Johnstone > There is nothing more epic than a Youtube video by Jimmy Dore immediately after he has been proven right about something. It's thunderous. It's unequivocal. And it happens a lot. > > "Now, I've gotten Russiagate right here," Dore said in a new video following revelations about the finalized Mueller report that there will be no further indictments, leaving the grand total of Americans charged with Russian conspiracy at exactly zero. > > "I did that in my garage," Dore added. "Those other stations didn't do that. Not because they don't have the resources I have. They did that 'cause they didn't want to. They did that 'cause they weren't interested in the truth. They did that because what they wanted to do was fuckin' get Donald Trump so bad they were willing to turn off their critical thinking skills and just listen to their lizard brains. And they wrecked America in the process. And we stood up against it, and we got smeared for standing up against it, and we still get smeared." > > "Congratulations to everyone here, congratulations to our crew," Dore said. "Congratulations to Ron and Steph and everybody, congratulations to Aaron Maté and Max Blumenthal and Kyle Kulinski, and whoever else got this right; it's a small club, it's a short list. And we took a lot of slings and arrows for it, and we're still taking. People hate you when you out-left them. We out-lefted everybody, and we did it in the right way. And so congratulations to you guys, congratulations to myself, congratulations to this show, and thank God I didn't try to get into journalism school but I tried to get into comedy first. Because if I was trying to get into that club, I would be just as shitty as the reporters at the Washington Post, the New York Times, MSNBC and CNN, and half the Youtubers, and we're not. We did a much better job." > > > Dore's sentiments are being echoed around the small sphere of progressive political commentators who've been saying since the beginning that Russiagate was a pernicious lie advanced by secretive government agencies who've been plotting to shove Russia off the world stage since the fall of the Soviet Union, by the Democrats who've had a vested interest in avoiding accountability for their failures and malfeasance in the 2016 election, and by the mass media who've been reaping extreme profits by peddling the clickbait sensationalist conspiracy theory that the Kremlin has infiltrated the highest levels of the US government. > > And rightly so. It is good that these alternative media figures are puffing their chests and shouting their I-told-you-sos, because you can be absolutely certain that the people who've been advancing the Russiagate narrative will never go out of their way to acknowledge the undeniable fact that they have been proven wrong while there were voices standing to their left getting it right. The mainstream narrative will do its very best to pace mainstream attention away from the inconvenient fact that there was abundant evidence contradicting a narrative which monopolized public energy for more than two years while manufacturing support for dangerous cold war escalations and sucking all oxygen out of the room for discussion of progressive reforms, so it is absolutely necessary for those voices who have been vindicated to make noise about it themselves. > > "How's this one looking?" asked Aaron Maté on Twitter, linking to a post he made last year correctly predicting the outcome of the Mueller investigation: "My prediction, FWIW: 0 indictments/claims of a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Mueller throws faithful a bone w/ suggestive wording like 'questionable/suspicious/unexplained' activity. We're left w/ indictments unrelated to collusion/campaign, or for process crimes resulting from probe." > > How’s this one looking? https://t.co/oGjTBfbTpO > > — Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) March 23, 2019 > > "Russiagate skeptics will be vindicated as we expected to be, but those responsible for this fake neocon intrigue got a new Cold War, record defense budgets, and a McCarthyite political atmosphere to denigrate opponents of permanent war," tweeted journalist Max Blumenthal. "A waste of energy and a setback for peace." > > "Early on, I argued with Rep. Jamie Raskin that Trump should be opposed on a principled, progressive basis - not with a phony intel intrigue cooked up by spooks and Clinton dead enders," Blumenthal added. "Like most Dems, he went with Russiagate & wound up emboldening Trump." > > "For almost three years I’ve been lambasted every single day for 'defending Trump' because I rejected that there was ample evidence for a Trump/Russia global espionage conspiracy," tweeted journalist Michael Tracey. "You know who was really 'defending Trump' after all? The people who promoted this nonsense." > > "I'm not gleeful - just disgusted that much of the US media spent 2 years spreading baseless (but very dangerous) conspiracy theories and mindlessly believing what their CIA, NSA and FBI sources whispered to them without seeing evidence - yet again," tweeted journalist Glenn Greenwald. > > "The Mueller news is exactly what I expected and told you would happen," tweeted Secular Talk's Kyle Kulinski. "But relax, centrist dems, I also predicted that when Trump is no longer POTUS he will be indicted on financial crimes, and this will also come to pass." > > Russiagate is looking like this generation’s WMD - a catastrophe for the reputation of the news media: https://t.co/mHACNsK10b > > — Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) March 23, 2019 > > Clear-eyed leftists got Russiagate right while everyone else got it wrong because they were the only group ideologically positioned to do so. People defending Trump on the right were doing so out of blind partisan loyalty while ignoring out of necessity what has long been the single most damning piece of evidence against Russiagate: the fact that Trump has been advancing insanely aggressive escalations against Russia and its allies, thereby showing him to be at least as much of a neocon-coddling establishment crony as his predecessors. Those advancing the narrative from the Democratic Party-aligned "center" are far too eager for any excuse to bust Trump and far too trusting of the same mass media outlets which lied us into the Iraq war. This leaves only the true left to see things with lucidity, and only the most lucid among them saw it. > > For a clear-eyed leftist, it's been an exhausting couple of years. The effort to hold on to facts and evidence while being buffeted by relentless waves of gaslighting propaganda has been tough and many have lost friends and allies on the way. These lies have created a highly toxic environment by leeching poison into the natural discourse and halting the progression of our species. Most people who got swept up in the Russiagate fervor were manipulated by their disgust for Trump and their desire to get him out, no matter if it was true or not. I think the great lesson here is that you can't out-manipulate the grand manipulators. You have to stick to the truth even when it appears to go against your own self interests because your ego has levers and it can be used to puppet you. If you always value the highest interest over your self interest then you can't be played. Demand evidence and keep demanding it until you get it. If you do, change your mind, if you don't, stick to your guns. That's the only way we'll get out of here alive. > > I am really happy to see everyone congratulating each other on social media. For those of you who think this is a little unseemly, let that go right now. Pat yourself on the back and make sure you give others props too. Make thank you lists of people who held strong and send them out on social media. Write "I told you so" posts. It's important that we mark a line in the sand right now or else the gaslighting will continue and history will be written over. Say it loud and proud that you were right, and they were wrong. The manipulators' efforts will now go into getting people to delay their reactions for as long as possible ("Wait until we've seen the report!") while they move the goalposts ("It was always about *insert anything but Russian collusion here* for me") and/or memory hole the whole deal by saying as little as possible and moving the news cycle as quickly as they can on to the next thing. If we all stand around being polite, they will get away with it. Don't let them. Make this one stick. > > ________________________ > > Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | March 23, 2019 at 11:38 pm | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1BH > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/03/23/russiagate-skeptics-rightly-boast-about-being-proven-100-correct/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Mar 24 12:35:17 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 07:35:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nina claims in her letter to the U of I that U of I faculty have campaigned to blacklist her and prevented her new film from being shown at Ebertfest, which is co-sponsored by the UI College of Media. http://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/02/28/open-letter-to-the-university-of-illinois/ Let's ask the Art Theater to show Nina's film during Ebertfest, as a protest in favor of free speech. The Art is just a block from the Virginia. It would be easy enough for people attending Ebertfest to walk over. You remember the scene in *The Cradle Will Rock *where the cast have to walk through the streets of New York City to another theater because the WPA has shut down their production under political pressure from fascists in Congress. It can be like that. We can encourage people to walk over en masse from the Virginia to the Art. It would be easy enough to spread the word to people who are attending Ebertfest. We would get press. It would boost the reputation of the Art, as an institution in this town that is independent of the University. What do you think? On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:02 AM David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > From my friend Nina Paley: > > *Does Sex Matter?* > > *Gender Identity vs. Material Reality* > > *Saturday (today) March 23rd, 3-5 p.m.* > > *Urbana Free Library, Lewis Auditorium (downstairs)* > > > > A transwoman, a detransitioner, and a radical feminist walk into a > Library…Speaking from different perspectives on modern gender identity > politics, these three panelists agree that all people broadly deserve civil > rights protections. But should gender identity replace sex as a legal > category? Women—particularly marginalized, imprisoned, lesbian, and abused > women—pay the highest price for this trend, as sex-based protections and > resources are rolled back in the name of “inclusivity.” > > Despite their unwavering support for individual expression, each speaker > has faced repercussions for critically analyzing gender identity, including > threats of violence, professional blacklisting, and loss of friendships. > They join for this event in the hope it will encourage wider civil and > respectful discussion. > > No lives will be harmed or erased while exploring these topics. > > *Panelists:* > > *Corinna Cohn* is an adult transsexual from Indianapolis. Having > undertaken hormone therapies and sex reassignment surgery as a teenager, > Corinna addresses the responsibilities accrued by a male inhabiting the > social role of women, and what young people should know before making an > irreversible commitment to transition. > > *Carey Callahan *is a detransitioned woman and family therapist from > Ohio. She explores the role of sexism in the rise of youth referrals for > gender dysphoria and the portrayal of detransitioners in the media. > > *Nina Paley* is an animator from Urbana, best known for feature films *Sita > Sings the Blues* and *Seder-Masochism*. An outspoken critic of both > censorship and sexism, she has been no-platformed and blacklisted locally > and abroad for saying penises are male. > > *Moderator:* > > *Traci Nally *is Executive Vice President and General Counsel for > News-Gazette Media. For over 30 years, she has worked in the areas of > defamation, access to public records and meetings, protection of reporters’ > newsgathering privileges, and other first amendment and free speech related > matters. > > *This program is not sponsored by the Urbana Free Library* > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Mar 24 17:12:21 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 12:12:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's a great idea. I would attend. BTW, the film is available online (as is her first film), as Nina opposes copyright restrictions. The event yesterday was enlightening and moving in a non-manipulative way. It was video recorded by two different people, so I assume it will be available for viewing, which I recommend. It lasted the entire 2 hours, and both the presentations and audience comments/questions were densely and intelligently substantive, sometimes to the point of being overwhelming. Apparently there was a pre-event protest, or at least expression of solidairty, upstairs at the UFL an hour prior to the event, by the trans community. I was hoping the the N-G would deign to cover the proceedings, and I sent Jim Dey a note encouraging that, but apparently not, at least from today's paper. On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 7:35 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > Nina claims in her letter to the U of I that U of I faculty have > campaigned to blacklist her and prevented her new film from being shown at > Ebertfest, which is co-sponsored by the UI College of Media. > > > http://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/02/28/open-letter-to-the-university-of-illinois/ > > Let's ask the Art Theater to show Nina's film during Ebertfest, as a > protest in favor of free speech. > > The Art is just a block from the Virginia. It would be easy enough for > people attending Ebertfest to walk over. > > You remember the scene in *The Cradle Will Rock *where the cast have to > walk through the streets of New York City to another theater because the > WPA has shut down their production under political pressure from fascists > in Congress. It can be like that. We can encourage people to walk over en > masse from the Virginia to the Art. > > It would be easy enough to spread the word to people who are attending > Ebertfest. > > We would get press. It would boost the reputation of the Art, as an > institution in this town that is independent of the University. > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:02 AM David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> From my friend Nina Paley: >> >> *Does Sex Matter?* >> >> *Gender Identity vs. Material Reality* >> >> *Saturday (today) March 23rd, 3-5 p.m.* >> >> *Urbana Free Library, Lewis Auditorium (downstairs)* >> >> >> >> A transwoman, a detransitioner, and a radical feminist walk into a >> Library…Speaking from different perspectives on modern gender identity >> politics, these three panelists agree that all people broadly deserve civil >> rights protections. But should gender identity replace sex as a legal >> category? Women—particularly marginalized, imprisoned, lesbian, and abused >> women—pay the highest price for this trend, as sex-based protections and >> resources are rolled back in the name of “inclusivity.” >> >> Despite their unwavering support for individual expression, each speaker >> has faced repercussions for critically analyzing gender identity, including >> threats of violence, professional blacklisting, and loss of friendships. >> They join for this event in the hope it will encourage wider civil and >> respectful discussion. >> >> No lives will be harmed or erased while exploring these topics. >> >> *Panelists:* >> >> *Corinna Cohn* is an adult transsexual from Indianapolis. Having >> undertaken hormone therapies and sex reassignment surgery as a teenager, >> Corinna addresses the responsibilities accrued by a male inhabiting the >> social role of women, and what young people should know before making an >> irreversible commitment to transition. >> >> *Carey Callahan *is a detransitioned woman and family therapist from >> Ohio. She explores the role of sexism in the rise of youth referrals for >> gender dysphoria and the portrayal of detransitioners in the media. >> >> *Nina Paley* is an animator from Urbana, best known for feature films *Sita >> Sings the Blues* and *Seder-Masochism*. An outspoken critic of both >> censorship and sexism, she has been no-platformed and blacklisted locally >> and abroad for saying penises are male. >> >> *Moderator:* >> >> *Traci Nally *is Executive Vice President and General Counsel for >> News-Gazette Media. For over 30 years, she has worked in the areas of >> defamation, access to public records and meetings, protection of reporters’ >> newsgathering privileges, and other first amendment and free speech related >> matters. >> >> *This program is not sponsored by the Urbana Free Library* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Mar 24 17:22:13 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 12:22:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Let's do a public letter to the Art Theater suggesting this idea and ask a bunch of people to sign it. Even if they don't ultimately agree to the idea, perhaps because the logistics can't be worked out, the public letter can serve as an indirect rebuke to UIUC for messing with Nina's free speech rights and artistic expression. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 12:12 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > That's a great idea. I would attend. > > BTW, the film is available online (as is her first film), as Nina opposes > copyright restrictions. > > The event yesterday was enlightening and moving in a non-manipulative way. > It was video recorded by two different people, so I assume it will be > available for viewing, which I recommend. It lasted the entire 2 hours, and > both the presentations and audience comments/questions were densely and > intelligently substantive, sometimes to the point of being overwhelming. > > Apparently there was a pre-event protest, or at least expression of > solidairty, upstairs at the UFL an hour prior to the event, by the trans > community. I was hoping the the N-G would deign to cover the proceedings, > and I sent Jim Dey a note encouraging that, but apparently not, at least > from today's paper. > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 7:35 AM Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > >> >> Nina claims in her letter to the U of I that U of I faculty have >> campaigned to blacklist her and prevented her new film from being shown at >> Ebertfest, which is co-sponsored by the UI College of Media. >> >> >> http://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/02/28/open-letter-to-the-university-of-illinois/ >> >> Let's ask the Art Theater to show Nina's film during Ebertfest, as a >> protest in favor of free speech. >> >> The Art is just a block from the Virginia. It would be easy enough for >> people attending Ebertfest to walk over. >> >> You remember the scene in *The Cradle Will Rock *where the cast have to >> walk through the streets of New York City to another theater because the >> WPA has shut down their production under political pressure from fascists >> in Congress. It can be like that. We can encourage people to walk over en >> masse from the Virginia to the Art. >> >> It would be easy enough to spread the word to people who are attending >> Ebertfest. >> >> We would get press. It would boost the reputation of the Art, as an >> institution in this town that is independent of the University. >> >> What do you think? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:02 AM David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> From my friend Nina Paley: >>> >>> *Does Sex Matter?* >>> >>> *Gender Identity vs. Material Reality* >>> >>> *Saturday (today) March 23rd, 3-5 p.m.* >>> >>> *Urbana Free Library, Lewis Auditorium (downstairs)* >>> >>> >>> >>> A transwoman, a detransitioner, and a radical feminist walk into a >>> Library…Speaking from different perspectives on modern gender identity >>> politics, these three panelists agree that all people broadly deserve civil >>> rights protections. But should gender identity replace sex as a legal >>> category? Women—particularly marginalized, imprisoned, lesbian, and abused >>> women—pay the highest price for this trend, as sex-based protections and >>> resources are rolled back in the name of “inclusivity.” >>> >>> Despite their unwavering support for individual expression, each speaker >>> has faced repercussions for critically analyzing gender identity, including >>> threats of violence, professional blacklisting, and loss of friendships. >>> They join for this event in the hope it will encourage wider civil and >>> respectful discussion. >>> >>> No lives will be harmed or erased while exploring these topics. >>> >>> *Panelists:* >>> >>> *Corinna Cohn* is an adult transsexual from Indianapolis. Having >>> undertaken hormone therapies and sex reassignment surgery as a teenager, >>> Corinna addresses the responsibilities accrued by a male inhabiting the >>> social role of women, and what young people should know before making an >>> irreversible commitment to transition. >>> >>> *Carey Callahan *is a detransitioned woman and family therapist from >>> Ohio. She explores the role of sexism in the rise of youth referrals for >>> gender dysphoria and the portrayal of detransitioners in the media. >>> >>> *Nina Paley* is an animator from Urbana, best known for feature films *Sita >>> Sings the Blues* and *Seder-Masochism*. An outspoken critic of both >>> censorship and sexism, she has been no-platformed and blacklisted locally >>> and abroad for saying penises are male. >>> >>> *Moderator:* >>> >>> *Traci Nally *is Executive Vice President and General Counsel for >>> News-Gazette Media. For over 30 years, she has worked in the areas of >>> defamation, access to public records and meetings, protection of reporters’ >>> newsgathering privileges, and other first amendment and free speech related >>> matters. >>> >>> *This program is not sponsored by the Urbana Free Library* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Mar 25 00:38:26 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 19:38:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jay Rosenstein says he has also been "blackballed by Ebertfest" Message-ID: Jay Rosenstein responded to my proposal thus on my Facebook page: "Are you kidding me? I’ve been blackballed from ebertfest my whole career, and I’m in the college of Media." Maybe we should have a "blackballed from ebertfest" film festival at the Art. :) https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158117308612656 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 25 01:01:18 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 20:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: This 156-year-old photo contains the secret References: <1553468758014.a22a3281-e278-43de-ac0e-2c8c5d97788a@mail10.shared.hubspot.com> Message-ID: <867D5885-E3E2-4219-BDFA-DF4526F7AAA6@gmail.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Lila Rose" > Subject: This 156-year-old photo contains the secret > Date: March 24, 2019 at 6:23:05 PM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Reply-To: lila.rose at liveaction.org > > > Hi C. G., > > I know you and I share something in common: a deep respect for the sanctity of every human life – especially innocent preborn babies. > > That’s why I’m sending you this Civil War-era photo of a man known as “Whipped Peter” - because the truth is, this 156-year-old photo contains the secret to ending abortion. Allow me to explain... > > > “Whipped Peter” lived as a slave in Louisiana before escaping in 1863. After 10 days of evading slave-hunters and their hounds, he came across a Union regiment, where he was granted sanctuary. > > A doctor in the camp asked the poor fugitive to remove his shirt so he could conduct a medical examination. When Peter removed the tattered rags covering his frail body, the doctor gasped in horror. > > Nearly every inch of his back was covered in scars from years of vicious whippings. > > The doctor took a picture of this poor man – the same picture you now see in this email – and sent it to Harper’s Weekly, which quickly published it. > > Before long, the image had spread across the country. Nearly every American saw for themselves how cruel slavery was. > > One reporter described the picture as “a testimony against slavery more eloquent than any words” and that “none but hardened natures can look upon it unmoved.” > > This image was the final blow for slavery. Once the American people had seen with their own eyes how evil slavery was, there was no going back. > > Now imagine if we could do the same thing with another great evil plaguing our nation: the brutal violence of abortion against the preborn. > > That’s exactly what our team here at Live Action is doing...and I pray you will join us by becoming a Life Defender - one of our committed monthly donors - today. > > Become a Life Defender: https://give.liveaction.org/life-defender/ > For far too long, Americans have ignored or do not know the dark truth about the killing of preborn children in our country. > > Not anymore. > > Live Action has developed a groundbreaking tool to give the American people an unfiltered look at the cruelty of abortion – just like how the picture of “Whipped Peter” forced Americans of the 19th Century to face the truth about slavery. > > You may know of Live Action’s many bombshell investigations of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry. > > Over the years, our investigators have recorded hidden-camera footage of Planned Parenthood workers covering up the sexual abuse of children, showing a willingness to assist child sex traffickers, and worse. > > We’ve also uncovered evidence that Planned Parenthood is lying about the services it provides women in order to justify the half a billion dollars it receives from taxpayers each year. > > So far, our work has fueled the effort to defund Planned Parenthood in several key states, costing the abortion giant tens of millions of dollars and counting. > > Some of our projects have even resulted in criminal investigations into Planned Parenthood, as well as probes from the Attorneys General of several states. > > Even more importantly, footage from our investigations has been viewed by more than 100 million people, changing countless hearts and minds as we strive to build a culture of life. > > But C. G., throughout our years of research and investigation of the abortion industry, one troubling fact has always stood out to me... > > Most people – especially young Americans – have no clue just how violent, cruel, and barbaric abortion really is. > > That’s because Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have masked abortion in euphemisms. Instead of saying abortion is a violent act that destroys the life of a child, they say they are simply “terminating the pregnancy” or removing a “clump of cells.” And the growing baby inside the womb is only referred to as the “product of conception.” > > Our team here at Live Action is tackling this problem head-on and exposing the truth about abortion in the same way the photo of “Whipped Peter” exposed the evils of slavery. > > We teamed up with Dr. Anthony Levatino – a former abortionist turned pro-life champion – to create a series of videos called Abortion Procedures: What You Need to Know. > > These videos expose the truth about what abortion really does to preborn babies. Using medically accurate animations, Dr. Levatino describes the various methods of abortion in honest detail. > > We created these videos because the abortion industry thrives on misinformation. Planned Parenthood knows that if women could see what abortion really is and looks like, more mothers would choose life for their babies. > > We didn’t sensationalize or exaggerate abortion in these videos. They simply provide an unbiased account of what abortion is from a doctor who used to commit them. > > People who watch these videos will learn that a D&E abortion involves crushing the skull of a baby, but only after her limbs and spinal cord are violently torn from her body piece by piece. > > They will learn that chemical abortions involve two drugs: one to starve the growing baby of precious nutrients for 72 hours until she dies, and another to induce maternal bleeding and force the dead baby out of the womb. > > > These videos show medically accurate animations of what an abortion is really like. Theycut through the euphemisms that Planned Parenthood hides behind. > > Caring people like you already understand how evil abortion is – that’s why you’re pro-life. But the truth is, most Americans – especially most young people – have no clue what abortion is really like. That’s why these videos are so badly needed. > > To show just how powerful these videos can be, we took to the streets to show them to young people who support abortion. > > One woman we interviewed said that she supported abortion all the way up to the moment before the child is born. > > We showed her the D&E Abortion Procedures video. She visibly winced and gasped as she watched Dr. Anthony Levatino describe the procedure. > > When she finished watching the video, we asked her if she still supported abortion up until birth. > > “No,” she told us. “I don’t think I support it, period.” > > What an astounding change of heart! > > > This woman described herself as “pro-choice” before watching our D&E AbortionProcedures video.There was a horrified look on her face as she saw what an abortionreally looks like. She said this video completely changed her mind about abortion. > She wasn’t the only one. We showed our videos to several other young people who described themselves as “pro-choice.” One person after the other told us that these videos changed their minds about abortion. > > C. G., will you commit to an ongoing monthly gift and join Live Action’s Life Defenders today? Your gift will make it possible to reach hundreds, even thousands, of people with this transformative educational content every day. > > Become a Life Defender: https://give.liveaction.org/life-defender/ > Brutal. Inhumane. Heinous. Inhuman. Murder. > > These are the words used by these pro-abortion young adults to describe abortion after watching just one of our videos! You can watch these interviews for yourself by visiting our website. > > C. G., when I see how people change after learning the truth, it fills me with confidence that one day, if you and I persevere, we will live in a world free from the moral rot of abortion. > > Just like how the picture of “Whipped Peter” turned Americans against slavery, our Abortion Procedures videos are turning Americans against abortion. > > Ever since we released this powerful tool, I’ve received emails, Facebook messages, and letters from pregnant mothers who were considering abortion before they came across our videos. > > These Abortion Procedures are literally saving lives! As mothers are faced with the cold reality of abortion, rather than Planned Parenthood’s sterile euphemisms, they are far more likely to choose life instead of death for their little ones. It’s been so encouraging to see this shift! > > And unlike Planned Parenthood, we don’t have to resort to tricks, bullying, and lies to win people over. All we need is to show them the TRUTH. > > These Abortion Procedures videos are a powerful tool...and now is the time to spread them to every corner of the country. > > C. G., it’s not enough to share these videos with people who already agree with us. We need to reach: > > Women who are considering abortion for their own preborn child > People who support the status quo of Roe v. Wade simply because they haven’t given much thought to the issue of abortion, and > Young people who are being fed Planned Parenthood’s lies > Will you share these powerful videos with as many people as possible by committing to an ongoing monthly gift with Live Action and becoming a Life Defender? > > Become a Life Defender: https://give.liveaction.org/life-defender/ > C. G., your support is needed for two reasons: > > First, our team is planning a major research effort to determine the most effective way of sharing these videos with our fellow Americans. > > Think of it this way: when a company wants to sell a new product, they hire experts to conduct surveys, assemble focus groups, and analyze internet traffic to determine the best way to reach their target audience. > > This is exactly what we are going to do with these videos. Planned Parenthood spends millions of dollars each year on “market research” to determine the most effective way to spread their lies. It’s time to fight fire with fire. > > Second, your support will allow us to place ads online that are targeted towards people who need to see these videos the most. > > Imagine a young pregnant woman...scared and uncertain about the future. Her friends and family are telling her to get an abortion, but her heart is conflicted. > > When she goes online to search for more information about abortion, what information will she receive – Planned Parenthood’s carefully crafted lies or the truth found in our Abortion Procedures videos? > > The answer to that question depends largely on how pro-life people like you respond to this e-mail. > > Every dollar you give means we can reach an additional 34 people with our heart-changing content. That means that a recurring gift from you of $30 will put these new groundbreaking videos in front of 1,020 people every month. > > Imagine the hundreds upon hundreds of preborn babies who will be saved from abortion thanks to your generosity! > > And, of course, your support will allow us to continue exposing the abuses and corruption of the abortion industry through our groundbreaking investigative research. > > Live Action has built the largest social media and online network in the entire pro-life movement, reaching millions of Americans every day. > > None of it would be possible without the sacrificial support of kind-hearted Americans like you. > > C. G., we need 250 new Life Defenders to join us this month - your monthly commitment can help us fight back against the abortion industry and save more innocent lives. Can I count on you to join us today? > > Become a Life Defender: https://give.liveaction.org/life-defender/ > When you choose to support our work here at Live Action, you are making a real difference. > > Please join me in this life-saving work. Building a culture that cherishes every life in America is a challenge we gladly accept. But we cannot do it without good people like you by our side. > > Thank you for reading - I look forward to hearing back from you. > > > For life, > > Lila Rose > President & Founder > Live Action > > P.S. I sent you the picture of “Whipped Peter” to make an important point. During the Civil War, abolitionists used photography – which at the time was cutting-edge technology – to expose the evils of slavery. It resulted in a massive shift in public opinion. > > Just like those abolitionists, Live Action is using today’s cutting-edge technology – the internet and social media – to expose the evils of abortion. > > Once someone sees just how cruel and violent abortion is, there is no going back. They will never be able to go back to thinking of a preborn child as “just a clump of cells.” This is how you and I will build a culture of life and end abortion. > > Become a Life Defender today: https://give.liveaction.org/life-defender/ > Live Action 2200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 102 PMB 111, Arlington, VA 22201 > > You received this message because you are subscribed to Requests for Support from Live Action. > If you would rather not receive this type of email, you can update your email preferences here or unsubscribe from all future emails. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 25 02:08:03 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 21:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Trump Is Going To Repeat This Until November 2020. Thanks, MSNBC. References: <139971992.6185.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Caitlin Johnstone > Date: March 24, 2019 at 8:59:11 PM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Subject: [New post] Trump Is Going To Repeat This Until November 2020. Thanks, MSNBC. > > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > Trump Is Going To Repeat This Until November 2020. Thanks, MSNBC. > by Caitlin Johnstone > After news broke that Robert Mueller had turned in his final report without recommending any further indictments, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow began frantically retweeting blue-checkmarked Twitter pundits who claimed that since nobody knows the contents of the report yet, the news that the number of Americans indicted for conspiring with the Russian government is set at zero doesn't matter. > > > > Well guess what, Rachel? We know what the report contains now. > > US Attorney General William Barr has sent a letter to congressional officials which you can read here. It contains the following unequivocal quote: > > The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” > > A footnote on the document clarifies that the Mueller investigation defined coordination with the Russian government very broadly, to include not just overt coordination but any “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.” No such agreement, tacit or otherwise, was found to have taken place. > > So that's it then. The central and foundational claim of the Russiagate conspiracy theory has been found to have been completely baseless. The report asserts that Russia hacked and distributed Democratic Party emails (a claim that the public has still yet to see any hard evidence for), and "did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other" whether Trump committed obstruction of justice in the investigation of baseless collusion allegations, but the central and foundational Russiagate claim that Trump and the Kremlin conspired to steal the 2016 election has been killed. Finito. Case closed. Debate over. > > And Trump is loving every second of it. > > No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT! > > — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 24, 2019 > > "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!" tweeted America's reality TV star president exactly as you would expect him to, taking some creative license with the actual contents of Barr's letter. > > This is your life for the next 594 days, America. You can expect to hear over and over and over again, from today until November 2020, that the president was victimized for over two years by a "WITCH HUNT" which was "COMPLETE and TOTAL FAKE NEWS!" All Trump will have to do to get re-elected is keep his economy narrative going and repeat the claim that he's been unjustly persecuted by the establishment "swamp". > > And it will work, because that claim will not be unfounded. As much of a corrupt establishment crony as Trump has proven himself to be, he does indeed have all the facts he needs to successfully sell the narrative that the political/media class has spent over two years pushing a baseless conspiracy theory that the highest levels of the US government had been infiltrated by the Kremlin, and he can indeed claim persecution and victimization in the process. He can easily leverage this into sympathy and support in his reelection campaign, and can use it to reinforce his tarnished image as an enemy of the beltway swamp. Those who've been selling the Russiagate narrative handed him this weapon. > > So thanks, Rachel Maddow. Thanks Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters and Eric Swalwell. Thanks CNN and MSNBC, Washington Post and New York Times. Thanks supposed progressives like Bernie Sanders and The Young Turks. Thank you to everyone who spent the first half of Trump's term helping to push the Russiagate narrative, thereby helping to ensure another four years of this asshole advancing longstanding establishment agendas of war, nuclear brinkmanship and ecocide. Thank you so much for helping to inflict that upon our planet with no regard for the inevitable consequences of your actions. > > Here's @mtaibbi: "WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations this time around dwarfs the last mess." https://t.co/ebPl0DW9rs > > — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) March 23, 2019 > > So are any of the aforementioned offenders admitting any fault on this? Actually, it's a surprisingly mixed bag. > > Sure, you've got more Russiagaters than I can count moving the goalposts to possible financial crimes and frantically grasping at the straws of Mueller's words in Barr's letter regarding potential obstruction of justice, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” You've got MSNBC analyst and "Saint Mueller Preserve Us" t-shirt salesman Malcolm Nance starting up a whole new conspiracy theory that Barr has committed the "greatest scandal in history to coverup the greatest scandal in history,” I guess implying that Barr is lying about the contents of a report that will with absolute certainty be viewed and verified by other people. > > But you've also got CNN's Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter sharing Matt Taibbi's excellent article titled "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD", which describes the mass media's spectacular failures to ask the questions that needed to be asked and demand the evidence that needed to be demanded for the claims advanced in the Russiagate narrative. You've got NBC's Ken Dilanian, an actual CIA asset who has been eagerly advancing the establishment Russia narrative, said that "this is a total legal exoneration of the president. Congress will want to know more, of course. But the topline: No conspiracy, no obstruction." This is highly unusual behavior from such stalwart empire loyalists, and it may be taken as a turning point of sorts on this particular aspect of this particular subject, due solely to the total destruction of any basis for their previous narrative. > > But, of course, the damage is already done. Trump has been handed a powerful political weapon which may have ensured his reelection to the White House, and, far, far worse, a new cold war with Russia is now underway which threatens the life of every organism on this earth, facilitated by a political/media class who convinced the public that they could hurt the president by demanding that he take a more hawkish posture toward Russia. That Pandora's box won't be un-opened by these new revelations. > > > > Congratulations to Russia-obsessed Democrats for being the single-most valuable contributors to the Donald J. Trump 2020 re-election campaign! > > — Michael Tracey (@mtracey) March 24, 2019 > > This should be the end of the mass media. In anything resembling a sane world, Rachel Maddow would be unloading her desk into a cardboard box today, and Aaron Maté would become the most respected and highest-paid journalist in America. > > This should be the end of the Democratic party. This dismal state of affairs is their fault, from the content of the leaked emails to their handling of it. They have had choices on the way to clean up their act but, they have blankly refused at every juncture. Not one thing has changed since the emails revealed that the DNC rigs its primaries, and yet here we are in the middle of another fake primary with everyone going along with it like it's a real thing. It's weird. In a healthy democratic republic the party would be dead already, and a new one would've taken its place fueled by fresh energy and enthusiasm but the donor-class corruption is so deeply entrenched that that possibility has seemed like a fantasy. > > For now. The next couple of days are going to be very important. As the clamoring din of Russiagate falls into the memory hole, a large empty space will open up. As the pundits scramble to find the Next Big Thing to blare through the screens, the people will be left to their own devices for a few precious moments. They won't know what to think. They may even have some of their own thoughts for once. The media landscape will resemble a demolition site. So why not use this space to push forward some new exciting ideas. Space means possibilities. Space means something new can be built. After the crushing disappointment of finally finding out that the whole thing was a bust, two years have been lost to the bumbling ineptitude of Pelosi and Schumer, and now impeachment is off the table, what has anyone got to lose? Let's try something new. > > _______________________ > > Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | March 25, 2019 at 1:58 am | Tags: #Trump, MSM, msnbc, Mueller, rachel maddow, report, Russia, Russiagate | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1BL > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/03/25/trump-is-going-to-repeat-this-until-november-2020-thanks-msnbc/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 25 11:52:25 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?RnJlbmNoIOKAnHllbGxvdyB2ZXN04oCdIHBy?= =?utf-8?q?otests_defy_threat_of_army_repression?= Message-ID: French “yellow vest” protests defy threat of army repression By Anthony Torres 25 March 2019 Despite “yellow vest” protesters’ anger at French officials’ threats to have the army fire on them, their marches on Saturday overall unfolded peacefully and without violent incidents. On Friday morning, the military governor of the Paris area, General Bruno Le Ray, had said that soldiers deployed to confront the “yellow vests” would have “different means for action faced with all types of threats. That can go as far as opening fire.” Ultimately, there were no confrontations between the army and the “yellow vests” this weekend, or soldiers opening fire on protesters. It was the police forces that committed the only major act of violence that marred the weekend. In Nice, they violently charged and beat over the head a 73-year-old woman who was not threatening the police forces, as footage from several video surveillance cameras has confirmed. She has been hospitalized with subdural hematomas and was reportedly for a time in a coma. “The police prefect has given the hospital very firm instructions not to communicate with the exterior, including with the family, who finds it very difficult to obtain information,” said Arié Alimi, the lawyer for the victim’s family. The family intends to bring a lawsuit against police for “voluntary violence by individuals disposing of state authority on vulnerable persons.” The daughter of the victim raised the question of the president’s responsibility, stressing that police are under no obligation to “obey the orders of a little king.” The “Yellow Number” Facebook page announced that there had been 123,000 “yellow vest” protesters in many cities across France. The Interior Ministry announced the absurd figure of 8,100 protesters across France, before changing its estimate to over 40,000. The largely peaceful unfolding of the “yellow vest” demonstrations raises again serious questions on the role of the security forces in the violence on March 16. Hundreds of unidentified violent protesters pillaged dozens of shops or stores on the Champs Elysées avenue. The media and parties of the political establishment immediately reacted hysterically. The Macron government claimed that the violence of March 16 was carried out by hardened, far-left violent protesters who were unidentified but enjoyed the complicity of the “yellow vests.” The government had announced the mobilization of the army as well as numerous measures including bans on protesting, raising fines for illegal protests from €38 to €115, mobilizing “anti-hooligan brigades” and the use of drones. Bans on protests hit Paris neighborhoods like the Champs Elysées, where the fighting had taken place on March 16, Capitole Square in Toulouse, where the protests have been strong, as well as neighbourhoods in Bordeaux. Nice and Marseille were also hit by protest bans. The hardened violent protesters the government blamed for the violence, without identifying or arresting them, did not appear at all this weekend. This strongly raises again the question of the identity of the elements that carried out the pillage on March 16, particularly given that elements of the riot police were videoed participating in the pillage. The suspicion still remains that forces inside the state could have given their agreement, at least tacitly, to a provocation. The threats of deadly violence that Macron and Le Ray were effectively making against the “yellow vests” come after four months of protests in France but only two weekends after mass protests began by Algerian workers and youth to bring down the Algerian government. The emergence of an international movement with revolutionary aspirations terrifies the French ruling class. Fearing the overthrow of General Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s regime, they are willing to turn to anyone to strangle the protests against the Macron regime in France. WSWS reporters spoke to “yellow vests” at Saturday’s protests in Paris. Asked about the advisability of the presence of army units around the Paris protests, one “yellow vest” explained to the WSWS: “As far as I see, I don’t think the media and the military will come together to practice shooting civilians. It’s impossible, unimaginable. But given the orders that exist today, coming from the Interior Ministry and the current government, it is possible that the soldiers could in fact shoot civilians at point blank range if there are problems.” About the violent criminals, he said that they “show up to try to blend in ‘yellow vest’ protests. That everybody knows and sees, including the police. But we can’t stop them because they come in large numbers, usually. We speak to them and they say: ‘We have a right to protest and to do what we want, so there, people should not be left by themselves to decide how to handle this problem.’” About General Le Ray’s threat to fire, another “yellow vest” told the WSWS: “It’s really extremely shocking. It had not happened in France since 1947 that the army was called in against protests. There, it is getting into a quagmire. … They are there just to protect buildings, but they do not realize this has a terrible impact. It’s really an admission of impotence to call in the army against the population while continuing to claim one is a patriot supporting law and order. This is clearly a new attack on democratic rights. The army is supposed to be there to shoot at enemies, not at the people.” Asked about events in Algeria, this “yellow vest” applauded the demonstration: “It is extremely beautiful what they are doing. They have succeeded much more than we have from early on, to expand the movement while remaining totally peaceful. And I think that for the time being they have better chances than us. Bouteflika has already given in once, I think that the masses are still mobilized and that they will succeed in forcing the government to turn around.” David, an IT professional, stressed his hostility to Macron’s anti-democratic measures: “I am here first of all because everything that is happening with France today is attacking liberty with anti-violent protester laws, given what is happening with the soldiers. They are trying to frighten us and today the people are hungry. There are people who cannot make it to the end of the month, who are having real trouble. … Today the only response we have had from Mr. Macron is repression, it is to send more and more police against us. Now he is sending military men against us, he is issuing threats via the media and television.” There was similar opposition from a “yellow vest” and student, who cited police brutality to explain why he had decided to come to the Paris protest: “We are rather often told that this movement is running out of steam. But it is not the army’s role to preserve law and order and to fire on the people. We have already had enough of riot police who hit people, who live difficult lives. I think the issue of people firing live ammunition now, it’s just talk to frighten us. … But then why send in the army? This movement has really scared those at the top. It’s just to scare people, try to shift public opinion, but now public opinion is really behind us.” Asked about workers’ struggles in Algeria and beyond, he compared that struggle with that of the “yellow vest” movement: “I have full solidarity with them on everything. … We know very well whatever happens in other countries.” The WSWS.ORG [https://www.wsws.org/en/media/photos/legacy/frontpage/article-JC-fund.png] Share this article: * Facebook * Twitter * Digg * Reddit * Delicious * StumbleUpon * Blogger * E-Mail Commenting Discussion Rules » -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 25 11:55:17 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?RnJlbmNoIOKAnHllbGxvdyB2ZXN04oCdIHBy?= =?utf-8?q?otests_defy_threat_of_army_repression?= Message-ID: French “yellow vest” protests defy threat of army By Anthony Torres 25 March 2019 Despite “yellow vest” protesters’ anger at French officials’ threats to have the army fire on them, their marches on Saturday overall unfolded peacefully and without violent incidents. On Friday morning, the military governor of the Paris area, General Bruno Le Ray, had said that soldiers deployed to confront the “yellow vests” would have “different means for action faced with all types of threats. That can go as far as opening fire.” Ultimately, there were no confrontations between the army and the “yellow vests” this weekend, or soldiers opening fire on protesters. It was the police forces that committed the only major act of violence that marred the weekend. In Nice, they violently charged and beat over the head a 73-year-old woman who was not threatening the police forces, as footage from several video surveillance cameras has confirmed. She has been hospitalized with subdural hematomas and was reportedly for a time in a coma. “The police prefect has given the hospital very firm instructions not to communicate with the exterior, including with the family, who finds it very difficult to obtain information,” said Arié Alimi, the lawyer for the victim’s family. The family intends to bring a lawsuit against police for “voluntary violence by individuals disposing of state authority on vulnerable persons.” The daughter of the victim raised the question of the president’s responsibility, stressing that police are under no obligation to “obey the orders of a little king.” The “Yellow Number” Facebook page announced that there had been 123,000 “yellow vest” protesters in many cities across France. The Interior Ministry announced the absurd figure of 8,100 protesters across France, before changing its estimate to over 40,000. The largely peaceful unfolding of the “yellow vest” demonstrations raises again serious questions on the role of the security forces in the violence on March 16. Hundreds of unidentified violent protesters pillaged dozens of shops or stores on the Champs Elysées avenue. The media and parties of the political establishment immediately reacted hysterically. The Macron government claimed that the violence of March 16 was carried out by hardened, far-left violent protesters who were unidentified but enjoyed the complicity of the “yellow vests.” The government had announced the mobilization of the army as well as numerous measures including bans on protesting, raising fines for illegal protests from €38 to €115, mobilizing “anti-hooligan brigades” and the use of drones. Bans on protests hit Paris neighborhoods like the Champs Elysées, where the fighting had taken place on March 16, Capitole Square in Toulouse, where the protests have been strong, as well as neighbourhoods in Bordeaux. Nice and Marseille were also hit by protest bans. The hardened violent protesters the government blamed for the violence, without identifying or arresting them, did not appear at all this weekend. This strongly raises again the question of the identity of the elements that carried out the pillage on March 16, particularly given that elements of the riot police were videoed participating in the pillage. The suspicion still remains that forces inside the state could have given their agreement, at least tacitly, to a provocation. The threats of deadly violence that Macron and Le Ray were effectively making against the “yellow vests” come after four months of protests in France but only two weekends after mass protests began by Algerian workers and youth to bring down the Algerian government. The emergence of an international movement with revolutionary aspirations terrifies the French ruling class. Fearing the overthrow of General Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s regime, they are willing to turn to anyone to strangle the protests against the Macron regime in France. WSWS reporters spoke to “yellow vests” at Saturday’s protests in Paris. Asked about the advisability of the presence of army units around the Paris protests, one “yellow vest” explained to the WSWS: “As far as I see, I don’t think the media and the military will come together to practice shooting civilians. It’s impossible, unimaginable. But given the orders that exist today, coming from the Interior Ministry and the current government, it is possible that the soldiers could in fact shoot civilians at point blank range if there are problems.” About the violent criminals, he said that they “show up to try to blend in ‘yellow vest’ protests. That everybody knows and sees, including the police. But we can’t stop them because they come in large numbers, usually. We speak to them and they say: ‘We have a right to protest and to do what we want, so there, people should not be left by themselves to decide how to handle this problem.’” About General Le Ray’s threat to fire, another “yellow vest” told the WSWS: “It’s really extremely shocking. It had not happened in France since 1947 that the army was called in against protests. There, it is getting into a quagmire. … They are there just to protect buildings, but they do not realize this has a terrible impact. It’s really an admission of impotence to call in the army against the population while continuing to claim one is a patriot supporting law and order. This is clearly a new attack on democratic rights. The army is supposed to be there to shoot at enemies, not at the people.” Asked about events in Algeria, this “yellow vest” applauded the demonstration: “It is extremely beautiful what they are doing. They have succeeded much more than we have from early on, to expand the movement while remaining totally peaceful. And I think that for the time being they have better chances than us. Bouteflika has already given in once, I think that the masses are still mobilized and that they will succeed in forcing the government to turn around.” David, an IT professional, stressed his hostility to Macron’s anti-democratic measures: “I am here first of all because everything that is happening with France today is attacking liberty with anti-violent protester laws, given what is happening with the soldiers. They are trying to frighten us and today the people are hungry. There are people who cannot make it to the end of the month, who are having real trouble. … Today the only response we have had from Mr. Macron is repression, it is to send more and more police against us. Now he is sending military men against us, he is issuing threats via the media and television.” There was similar opposition from a “yellow vest” and student, who cited police brutality to explain why he had decided to come to the Paris protest: “We are rather often told that this movement is running out of steam. But it is not the army’s role to preserve law and order and to fire on the people. We have already had enough of riot police who hit people, who live difficult lives. I think the issue of people firing live ammunition now, it’s just talk to frighten us. … But then why send in the army? This movement has really scared those at the top. It’s just to scare people, try to shift public opinion, but now public opinion is really behind us.” Asked about workers’ struggles in Algeria and beyond, he compared that struggle with that of the “yellow vest” movement: “I have full solidarity with them on everything. … We know very well whatever happens in other countries.” The WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Mar 26 00:09:25 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] anti-neoconservative notes Message-ID: <96ce18d0-a215-40fa-e07e-d6e0722aabe6@forestfield.org> Some notes to spur discussion for AWARE on the Air. War: Killer drones are being challenged in court https://www.dw.com/en/court-orders-germany-to-question-us-drone-strikes/a-47979480 -- "Three Yemeni men have scored a partial success after suing Germany for its alleged role in drone attacks that killed relatives. The plaintiffs want Berlin to stop the US using German territory to relay information." > A court in Münster on Tuesday ruled partly in favor of three plaintiffs > from Yemen who alleged that their relatives were killed in a 2012 US > drone strike that was relayed via an airbase in Germany. > > The Münster Higher Administrative Court ruled that the German government > must take "appropriate measures" to ascertain whether US operations > conducted via the Ramstein Air Base are in line with international law. > > The court ruled that Berlin should also, if necessary, press Washington > to adhere to international law on drone strikes. > > The case was brought by the European Center for Constitutional and Human > Rights on behalf of a family from the Hadramawt region of eastern Yemen. > The plaintiffs alleged that Germany was partly responsible for the > deaths of two family members, with the base in southwestern Germany > acting as a relay station for drones operated from the US. > > US drone strikes in Yemen have been aimed at members of al-Qaida, but > doubt has arisen over whether they were targeting individuals with a > "continuous combat function." Such a function is viewed as a legal > threshold to prevent civilians associated with, but not fighting for, > armed groups from being subject to extrajudicial killings. When you're down with the drone war, you're down with these outcomes. I'm looking at you, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Sen. Bernie Sanders, both of whom have told us that they are down with the drone program: Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders > administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like? > > Bernie Sanders: All of that and more. > > Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones-- > > Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is > terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a > building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't > do us any -- it's terrible. > > Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you > think you've isolated an important terrorist? > > Bernie Sanders: Yes. > > Chuck Todd: So that continues? > > Bernie Sanders: Yes. Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with > strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your > position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the > U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is > that still your position? > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > current AUMFs. > > 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. US/Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRMs2K7DSY8 -- Trump signs declaration recognizing Israel's sovereignty over Golan Heights. Troop movements: US, Russia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tXmde8lOz4 -- War with China? US sends a destroyer to Chinese shores. US military ships pass through Strait of Taiwan as China watches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlQbKKx3BII -- Russia reportedly sent ~100 soldiers to Venezuela. -J From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Mar 26 00:12:23 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:12:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] anti-neoliberal notes Message-ID: <719c8d60-0d36-4210-3f60-02604a7b887c@forestfield.org> Some notes to spur discussion for News from Neptune. I'll post these a little earlier than I normally do just in case I don't get a chance to post again later. It's hard to separate Russiagate into anti-neoliberal and anti-neoconservative notes as it spans both. But this time I'll lump them all here and leave it to you to sort things out. Russiagate: What we know so far of Mueller's report -- Barr's summary https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/read-mueller-key-findings-doj/index.html -- text and links to Barr's PDF summarizing Mueller's report. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5779684/AG-March-24-2019-Letter-to-House-and-Senate.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5779684/AG-March-24-2019-Letter-to-House-and-Senate.txt Russiagate: Russiagate makes supporters look irrational, incapable of serious analysis, or biased for partisan (possibly corporatist) ends. Robert Scheer's podcast "Scheer Intelligence" RSS feed: https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/scheer-intelligence/rss.xml Episode: "Liberals Are Digging Their Own Grave With Russiagate" Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/podcast-download.kcrw.com/kcrw/audio/podcast/etc/si/KCRW-scheer_intelligence-liberals_are_digging_their_own_grave_with_russiagate_2019_03_08-190308.mp3 Transcript: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/liberals-are-digging-their-own-grave-with-russiagate/ Redacted Tonight segment on this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krV0wKwAdt0 > Robert Scheer: So my last question to you is when I look at this > situation, the reason I say it’s so nutty, Professor Cohen, it seems to > me Putin is the guy who got screwed over whatever he was hoped to be > gained by Trump winning. Russia still has sanctions; NATO’s still moving > very close to their heartland. Arms control agreements are being torn > asunder. And so as opposed to, for instance, Israel, which got Trump’s > foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran, for example, is Netanyahu’s policy, what > did Putin get from this? > > Stephen Cohen: Well, and he’s criticized for that. I mean, first of all, > the Kremlin did not do anything to help put Trump in the White House. > There’s zero evidence. Moreover, there are maybe a half a dozen major > newspapers in Russia that are close to the Kremlin. So if you want to > know what the debates are inside the Kremlin, inside the 30 or 40 > people, “the collective Putin” as he’s called in Russia, you read these > newspapers. And during the electoral presidential campaign in 2016, in > these Russian newspapers was a grave uncertainty of which candidate > would be better for Russia, Trump or Clinton. > > Robert Scheer: And this whole Russiagate, this whole hysteria is a way > of avoiding a serious inquiry into what ails us. The clarity of the > moment requires recognizing this rot at the core. Russiagate: Caitlin Johnstone nails it. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-mueller-report-is-in-they-were-wrong-we-were-right-a915d23a6d82 -- Caitlin Johnstone gets Russiagate fall in one. > The Robert Mueller investigation which monopolized political discourse > for two years has finally concluded, and his anxiously awaited report > has been submitted to Attorney General William Barr. The results are in > and the debate is over: those advancing the conspiracy theory that the > Kremlin has infiltrated the highest levels of the US government were > wrong, and those of us voicing skepticism of this were right. > > The contents of the report are still secret, but CNN’s Justice > Department reporter Laura Jarrett has told us all we need to know, > tweeting, “Special Counsel Mueller is not recommending ANY further > indictments am told.” On top of that, William Barr said in a letter to > congressional leaders that there has been no obstruction of Mueller’s > investigation by Justice Department officials. and rightly ends with: > We must never let them forget what they did or what they cost us all. We > must never let mainstream Democrats forget how crazy they got, how much > time and energy they wasted, how very, very wrong they were and how > very, very right we were. > > Never stop reminding them of this. Never stop mocking them for it. Never > stop mocking their idiotic Rachel Maddow worship. Never stop mocking the > Robert Mueller prayer candles. Never stop making fun of the way they > blamed all their problems on Susan Sarandon. Never stop reminding them > of those stupid pink vagina hats. Never stop mocking them for elevating > Louise Mensch and Eric Garland. Never stop mocking them for creating the > fucking Krassenstein brothers. > > Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone > who swallowed this moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited > themselves for life. Going forward, authority and credibility rests > solely with those who kept clear eyes and clear heads during the mass > media propaganda blitzkrieg, not with those who were stupid enough to > believe what they were told about the behaviors of a noncompliant > government in a post-Iraq invasion world. The people who steered us into > two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people anyone should > ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our > world. The whole article is worth reading, but it's Schaudenfreude for those who exposed Russiagate for what it always was. Russiagate: Matt Taibbi nails it. His whole article is worth reading. It's a great summary and conclusion, there's simply too much there to quote. There's no part of this conspiracy theory that makes the media look good. Russiagate has been debunked since it started, the Russiagate promoters championed the CIA & FBI (suddenly these organizations are good!) and essentially hoisted themselves by their own petard when Mueller's report didn't result in recommending indicting any Americans. William Barr's summary is enough to let us know that more people will now have to admit the fraudulence of Russiagate. https://archive.fo/rQlsx https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million -- Corporate and corporate-compatible media can't be taken seriously...again. And for more good reasons. The WMDs Mueller lied to Congress and the world about was bad enough, that helped get an illegal and unethical invasion and occupation going. Now the Russiagate conspiracy theory piles on the evidence against the media. https://theintercept.com/2019/03/25/watch-a-contentious-constructive-debate-on-the-media-and-political-humiliation-from-the-mueller-report/ -- Glenn Greenwald's article not only points to Taibbi's article above as required reading (a well-deserved recommendation) but points to Greenwald's patient debunking of David Cay Johnston's distracting and dissembling attempt to avoid admitting he stopped engaging his critical thinking skills on Russiagate. It's nothing but embarrassment for Johnston who (like some other Russiagators) had done good journalism in the past (Marcy Wheeler and Rachel Maddow weren't always nutty and desperate sycophants). > [W]hat prevented me from writing anything is that Matt Taibbi > brilliantly wrote everything I wanted to say in this definitive article > on the debacle, one that I urge everyone to read. It lays out in > indisputable, horrific detail the media’s indescribably and relentlessly > reckless behavior over the last three years, whereby they abused and > exploited valid fears of Trump to sell – for their own profit and > benefit – completely false and baseless conspiracy theories that have > now been completely debunked by their own anointed authority. I won’t > excerpt any parts of it because it should be read in full by as many > people as possible. > > As Taibbi says, while the Iraq War was far worse in terms of impact (at > least thus far), the media’s endless series of deceitful and > manipulative behavior and spreading of blatantly false conspiracy > theories since 2016 was far worse. In sum, Rachel Maddow is the Judy > Miller of the Trump/Russia story, except that unlike Miller – who was > scapegoated for behavior that many of her male colleagues also engaged > in to the point where her career and reputation was destroyed – Maddow, > who makes $10 million a year from NBC, is too valuable a corporate brand > and too much of a liberal celebrity for any consequences or > accountability to be permitted. Another difference is that Maddow was so > far more frequently off the deep end – way off the deep end, in another > universe totally devoid of basically rationality – than Miller ever > was. Also read https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/25/as_mueller_finds_no_collusion_did -- Greenwald's debate with David Cay Johnston on DN. Although Greenwald is too kind to admit it, Amy Goodman is also a Russiagator who has some explaining to do. Goodman passed along unchallenged Russiagate narrative in her headlines (the exact opposite of what she did for pro-Iraq invasion headlines from the New York Times before the 2003 US invasion of Iraq). Johnston isn't the only one in this interview making most media coverage look showstoppingly bad here. Greenwald continues to debunk and not let Johnston's repeated attempt at distraction take over the debate. Russiagate: Aaron Maté nails it. A critical mind with good reasoning skill is worth more than millions in media coverage if your goal is to reach a defensible understanding of current events. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjPgO57AzjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP6oG2mpWlY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qe7A58TEms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lC8tx9lN0E -- Jimmy Dore and Aaron Maté take an earned "victory lap" (as Dore called it) basking in the glow that they were right on Russiagate from the start and Dore's small-time operation run out of his garage is bringing better views on Russiagate to the public than organizations that have millions of dollars to spend and huge full-time staff to do research. One important point few bring up: There's strong evidence to back the idea that Democrats are more interested in stopping progressives than they are losing the presidency to Trump again. Democrats are chasing the same sources of money as the Republicans and therefore have the same masters with the same goals. This is why the corporate duopoly can be so effective in deceive the public into believing they're oppositional parties. On all of the biggest issues of the day, war chief among them, they're not opposed. Economics: Italy & China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4fLH034Ll8 -- Italy signs up with Chinese "Belt & Road" initiative. Is this the start of a trend? Economics: Venezuela does oil deal -- two huge buyers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc1fbI2AgLc -- Venezuelan oil deal with China & India. This is said to replace oil deals with US and others the US can convince to help starve Venezuela. -J From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Tue Mar 26 10:30:57 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 05:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] JKilgore: Rep. Ammons electronic monitoring bill-please support w witness slip today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I heard Rep. Ammons and James Kilgore talking about this on WILL yesterday. The corporate-profit-government-capture gratuitous brutality of the status quo is truly spectacular. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: James Kilgore Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:25 AM Subject: Carol Ammons electronic monitoring bill-please support with witness slip before March 26th Our local Rep. Carol Ammons has put forward a pioneering bill in the IL state legislature HB 1115 . This bill would eliminate the use of electronic monitoring for all those who have completed their prison sentences in the Illinios Department of Corrections. At present, large numbers of people are placed on an electronic monitor when they have completed their prison sentences. Speaking from personal experience I can say that the monitor is a great hindrance to anyone trying to find employment, housing, or participate in family,community, educational or religious activities. In short, everything a person needs to do to get their life back on track after incarceration is thrown off track by being on house arrest with a monitor and having to get permission from your parole agent to leave the house for any reason. On Feb. 22nd, I was in Chicago to take part in the first legislative hearing in any state in the US to discuss the need for this type of legislation. Now HB 1115 has become a reality-the Mandatory Supervised Release Reentry Freedom Act. The house judiciary committee will vote on the bill next Tuesday, March 26 at 4 p.m. in Springfield. I am asking you to support this bill and the cutting edge work of our local representative by submitting a witness slip identifying yourself as a proponent of this bill before Tuesday the 26th. You don't have to attend the committee hearing to submit. You can add a comment or message if you like, or simply indicate your support. You can find the link to submit a slip here . If you need help in navigating the online process, you can find it here or you can email me with any questions you might have. Thanks so much for your support. Find embedded below a basic information sheet on the bill. T [image: CMJ Fact Sheet.JPG] James Kilgore Co-Director, FirstFollowers Reentry Program Center for African Studies University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) Soros Justice Advocacy Fellow 2017-18 www.challengingecarceration.org Author, Understanding Mass Incarceration -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Mar 26 13:29:14 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:29:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is there still a Jewish Voice for Peace chapter in Champaign-Urbana? Message-ID: A while ago, there was a Jewish Voice for Peace chapter in Champaign-Urbana. Some of the people who came to early meetings were particularly interested in the cultural aspect of things. Like, "it's ok to learn a little Yiddish, you wouldn't die." Is there such a chapter now? === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Mar 26 13:35:45 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:35:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Turning Our Backs on Nuremberg Message-ID: ...it wouldn’t be surprising if you had missed the Associated Press report about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announcing that the United States “will revoke or deny visas to International Criminal Court personnel seeking to investigate alleged war crimes and other abuses committed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere.” In fact, said Pompeo, some visas may already have been denied or revoked, but he refused to “provide details as to who has been affected and who will be affected” (supposedly to protect the confidentiality of visa applicants). National Security Advisor John Bolton had already signaled such a move last September in a speech to the Federalist Society. In what the Guardian calledan “excoriating attack” on the International Criminal Court, or ICC, Bolton said, “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.” By “unjust prosecution,” he clearly meant any attempt to hold Americans accountable for possible war crimes. An exception even among exceptional nations, the United States simply cannot commit such crimes. Hence, by the logic of Bolton or Pompeo, any prosecution for such a crime must, by definition, be unjust… From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Mar 26 15:17:47 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Compare and Contrast Message-ID: <005a01d4e3e7$12d3adc0$387b0940$@comcast.net> Compare and Contrast >From investigative reporter Robert Parry who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. So how do Watergate and Iran-Contra compare and contrast with Russia-gate? One key difference is that in Watergate in 1972-73 and Iran-Contra in 1985-86, you had clear-cut crimes. By contrast, Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation. Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russians in the hacking. Another contrast between the earlier scandals (Watergate and Iran-Contra) and Russia-gate is the degree of enthusiasm and excitement that the U.S. mainstream media and congressional Democrats have shown today as opposed to 1972 and 1986. For several months, there was a flurry of attention to the complex Iran-Contra scandal, but the big media still ignored evidence of a White House cover-up and soon lost interest in the difficult work of unraveling the convoluted networks for arms smuggling, money laundering and cocaine trafficking. Congressional Democrats also shied away from a constitutional confrontation with the popular Reagan and his well-connected Vice President George H.W. Bush. Today, the senior executives of The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major news outlets have made no secret of their disdain for the buffoonish Trump and their hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin. In other words, what is driving Russia-gate - for both the mainstream news media and the Democrats - appears to be a political agenda, i.e., the desire to remove Trump from office while also ratcheting up a New Cold War with Russia, a priority for Washington's neoconservatives and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue Mar 26 16:28:40 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:28:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Turning Our Backs on Nuremberg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The hypocrisy is thoroughgoing: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/11/684324935/last-wwii-nazi-living-in-us-deported-to-germany-last-year-is-dead-at-95 For example, the Holocaust Industry had to go after this fellow, while presumably hundreds of thousands of German soldiers and officials were allowed to live out their lives under the West German regime, governed largely by former Nazis. Nevertheless, the Office of Special Investigations has to lie about even how many "former Nazis" they prosecuted and deported. >From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Investigations_(United_States_Department_of_Justice) "As of August 2005, OSI had successfully prosecuted 100 persons involved in Nazi war crimes .(*There are no sources cited for this assertion*) These persons have been denaturalized and/or been deported from the United States . (*There are no sources cited for this assertion*) Many had lived in the U.S. for decades and led unremarkable lives. (*There are no sources cited for this assertion)*For example, Adam Friedrich had lived in the U.S. since 1955 and been a citizen since 1962 before OSI found that he had been a member of the SS-Totenkopfverbände assigned as a prison guard at the Gross-Rosen concentration camp (*There are no sources cited for this assertion*). He was denaturalized in 2004 but died in 2006 before he could be deported (*There are no sources cited for this assertion*). " I edited this passage, presumably put up by an O.S.I. hack, to point out the lack of references. There is no evidence whatsoever, including on the Justice Department website with an elaborate summary that mentions less than 10 people, which shows who the "prosecuted 100 persons involved in Nazi war crimes" actually were. It's just one more fabrication, one more level of the Holocaust Industry con. But don't we feel good about sending a 95-year-old Ukrainian to Europe to die for the Nazi crimes, just to be able to say Demjanjuk wasn't the only one they could dig up. And if you're O.S.I., you don't even have to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding references. https://www.counterpunch.org/2009/05/14/the-deportation-of-demjanjuk/ On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:36 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > < > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176543/tomgram%3A_rebecca_gordon%2C_turning_our_backs_on_nuremberg/#more > > > > ...it wouldn’t be surprising if you had missed the Associated Press report > about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announcing that the United States > “will revoke or deny visas to International Criminal Court personnel > seeking to investigate alleged war crimes and other abuses committed by > U.S. forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere.” In fact, said Pompeo, some visas > may already have been denied or revoked, but he refused to “provide details > as to who has been affected and who will be affected” (supposedly to > protect the confidentiality of visa applicants). > > National Security Advisor John Bolton had already signaled such a move > last September in a speech to the Federalist Society. In what the Guardian > calledan “excoriating attack” on the International Criminal Court, or ICC, > Bolton said, “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our > citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this > illegitimate court.” > > By “unjust prosecution,” he clearly meant any attempt to hold Americans > accountable for possible war crimes. An exception even among exceptional > nations, the United States simply cannot commit such crimes. Hence, by the > logic of Bolton or Pompeo, any prosecution for such a crime must, by > definition, be unjust… > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue Mar 26 16:44:25 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:44:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is there still a Jewish Voice for Peace chapter in Champaign-Urbana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Even though I paid dues to JVP for a few years, I was never really involved with the local chapter, organized by Samantha Brotman during the Salaita episode. I haven't heard of any specific activity for quite a few years now. Meanwhile, SJP seems rather moribund now as well, undone by one of its leaders' focus on "intersectionality." I'm critical of the manner in which JVP nationally has attached itself to #resistance and promoted a kind of Jewish identity politics, a "progressive" version of the ADL. There was a good guy named Steve Sherman, I believe a grad student in Geography, who was involved during the Salaita episode; I'm not sure if he's still around. I don't think Samantha is either. I'm not currently on board with the strategy/tactics of the national JVP, such as I understand them to revolve almost solely around BDS. I know its grown a lot in membership and contributions in recent years, but nothing fails like success, as they say. On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:29 AM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > A while ago, there was a Jewish Voice for Peace chapter in > Champaign-Urbana. > > Some of the people who came to early meetings were particularly interested > in the cultural aspect of things. Like, "it's ok to learn a little Yiddish, > you wouldn't die." > > Is there such a chapter now? > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Mar 26 16:59:50 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is there still a Jewish Voice for Peace chapter in Champaign-Urbana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I share some of your ambivalence about the national direction of JVP. However, that's not really what my question was about. It was more about trying to find local people who were a little bit involved in it, if they are still around. Especially people who showed up to early meetings, some of whom, I think, showed up less out of any strong attachment to national JVP then a sense of "oh, here's a group of local progressive Jews who are trying to do something independent of the Jewish Establishment, let's see if we have a home here." Those are the people I'm looking for. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:44 AM David Green wrote: > Even though I paid dues to JVP for a few years, I was never really > involved with the local chapter, organized by Samantha Brotman during the > Salaita episode. I haven't heard of any specific activity for quite a few > years now. Meanwhile, SJP seems rather moribund now as well, undone by one > of its leaders' focus on "intersectionality." > > I'm critical of the manner in which JVP nationally has attached itself to > #resistance and promoted a kind of Jewish identity politics, a > "progressive" version of the ADL. > > There was a good guy named Steve Sherman, I believe a grad student in > Geography, who was involved during the Salaita episode; I'm not sure if > he's still around. I don't think Samantha is either. > > I'm not currently on board with the strategy/tactics of the national JVP, > such as I understand them to revolve almost solely around BDS. I know its > grown a lot in membership and contributions in recent years, but nothing > fails like success, as they say. > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:29 AM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> >> A while ago, there was a Jewish Voice for Peace chapter in >> Champaign-Urbana. >> >> Some of the people who came to early meetings were particularly >> interested in the cultural aspect of things. Like, "it's ok to learn a >> little Yiddish, you wouldn't die." >> >> Is there such a chapter now? >> >> === >> >> Robert Reuel Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue Mar 26 17:22:51 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:22:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is there still a Jewish Voice for Peace chapter in Champaign-Urbana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't have much of a sense of who that might be; wish I did. I know that Bruce Rosenstock (Dept. of Religion) seemed to be interested when Rabbi Brant Rosen came to speak; but I don't know him personally and don't have any sense of where he's at now. On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:00 PM Robert Naiman wrote: > > I share some of your ambivalence about the national direction of JVP. > However, that's not really what my question was about. It was more about > trying to find local people who were a little bit involved in it, if they > are still around. Especially people who showed up to early meetings, some > of whom, I think, showed up less out of any strong attachment to national > JVP then a sense of "oh, here's a group of local progressive Jews who are > trying to do something independent of the Jewish Establishment, let's see > if we have a home here." Those are the people I'm looking for. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:44 AM David Green > wrote: > >> Even though I paid dues to JVP for a few years, I was never really >> involved with the local chapter, organized by Samantha Brotman during the >> Salaita episode. I haven't heard of any specific activity for quite a few >> years now. Meanwhile, SJP seems rather moribund now as well, undone by one >> of its leaders' focus on "intersectionality." >> >> I'm critical of the manner in which JVP nationally has attached itself to >> #resistance and promoted a kind of Jewish identity politics, a >> "progressive" version of the ADL. >> >> There was a good guy named Steve Sherman, I believe a grad student in >> Geography, who was involved during the Salaita episode; I'm not sure if >> he's still around. I don't think Samantha is either. >> >> I'm not currently on board with the strategy/tactics of the national JVP, >> such as I understand them to revolve almost solely around BDS. I know its >> grown a lot in membership and contributions in recent years, but nothing >> fails like success, as they say. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:29 AM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> A while ago, there was a Jewish Voice for Peace chapter in >>> Champaign-Urbana. >>> >>> Some of the people who came to early meetings were particularly >>> interested in the cultural aspect of things. Like, "it's ok to learn a >>> little Yiddish, you wouldn't die." >>> >>> Is there such a chapter now? >>> >>> === >>> >>> Robert Reuel Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Mar 26 20:44:52 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:44:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News-Gazette LTE: Why no apologies for airstrikes? Message-ID: [This was in today's print edition.] http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-the-editor/2019-03-25/letter-the-editor-why-no-apologies-airstrikes.html Mon, 03/25/2019 - 11:40pm | The News-Gazette The News-Gazette published a March 16 article about the mosque shooting in New Zealand, writing that "Trump tweeted Friday that his 'warmest sympathy and best wishes go out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques.'" I hope that Trump, and indeed all Americans, will also condemn the horrible massacres in mosques carried out by the United States itself. On March 16, 2017, the United States conducted airstrikes on the Omar Ibn al-Khatab Mosque near al-Jinah, Syria. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, "the airstrike had killed at least 49 people and wounded dozens, mostly civilians who were attending a religious lesson." Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis, however, said that "dozens of al-Qaida fighters were killed in the Thursday strike by manned and unmanned U.S. aircraft on an al-Qaida meeting place in the village of al-Jina, Aleppo." But Human Rights Watch disputes this in a report on the airstrikes from April 2017, writing that, after its own investigation, it "has not found evidence to support the allegations that the mosque was a meeting place for members of al-Qaida in Syria or other armed groups." The Pentagon's position is implausible. We massacred civilians in a mosque. We readily condemn the massacres carried out by others, but refuse even to think about the massacres we carry out ourselves. It seems that, yet again, we find that we Americans are a nation radically consumed by hypocrisy. ANDREW SMITH Champaign === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Mar 27 02:46:17 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 21:46:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AOTA #475 notes Message-ID: <3c950047-699c-3397-269b-0833688f1e67@forestfield.org> AWARE on the Air #475 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkYWP0kjVAs Links to items referenced on the show. Percy Bysshe Shelley's "The Masque of Anarchy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masque_of_Anarchy Complete text: http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/PShelley/anarchy.html J.B. Nicholson on "Is Tulsi Gabbard really anti-war? No, she’s pro-drone and for “surgical strikes”." https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ The latest edition of Anti-neoconservative notes https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-March/050588.html The latest edition of Anti-neoliberal notes https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-March/050589.html Andrew Smith on "Why no apologies for airstrikes?" http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-the-editor/2019-03-25/letter-the-editor-why-no-apologies-airstrikes.html -J From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Mar 27 04:13:56 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:13:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) Message-ID: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. —CGE From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Mar 27 05:22:15 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2fcfcdcc-24f9-5282-8386-24659a88b82f@forestfield.org> David Green wrote: > It was video recorded by two different people, so I assume it will be > available for viewing, which I recommend. https://vimeo.com/326585294 is the Q&A segment of the "Does Sex Matter?" panel discussion. It's listed as part 4 and Nina Paley has said that she'll upload more parts later in http://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/03/26/q-and-a-from-the-does-sex-matter-panel/ From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 05:27:26 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:27:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Altho' it seems unlikely, I think this is right Message-ID: —CGE From jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 06:16:29 2019 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 01:16:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ > > Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political > establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately > afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war > provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and > China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. > > That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > —CGE > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 27 11:24:44 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:24:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: I promised my Rabbi not to have an International Day of Gloating over the death of Russiagate. But this is too funny to pass up. Every Jew gets one indulgence for free. https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158125446977656 === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 1:17 AM John W. via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > >> https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ >> >> Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political >> establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately >> afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war >> provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and >> China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. >> >> That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. >> > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > > >> —CGE >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 12:41:52 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:41:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ >> >> Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. >> >> That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > >> —CGE > _______________________________________________ > 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 jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 13:28:29 2019 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:28:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( > On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > >> https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ >> >> Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political >> establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately >> afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war >> provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and >> China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. >> >> That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. >> > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > > >> —CGE >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Mar 27 13:34:46 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:34:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 13:50:35 2019 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:50:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. > > > > David J. > So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? > *From:* Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On > Behalf Of *John W. via Peace-discuss > > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM > *To:* C. G. Estabrook > *Cc:* Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your > bracket) > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > > > > Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in > point of fact? > > > > Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ > > Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political > establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately > afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war > provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and > China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. > > That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > > > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > > > > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Mar 27 14:36:26 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:36:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” See . After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… > On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: > > Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. > > > > David J. > > > So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM > To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > > > > Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? > > > > Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > > > https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ > > Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. > > That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > > > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > > > > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 15:10:42 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:10:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <85C9FEE2-5FC7-438E-87C3-79473E08D2D6@gmail.com> Neoconservatism took its rise a half-century ago among American liberal partisans of Israel (often former Trotskyists), frightened that the anti-Vietnam war movement (by 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness) would lessen American willingness to fight for the expansion of Israel. "Historically speaking, the term ‘neoconservative' refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s. The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, edited by Norman Podhoretz and published by the American Jewish Committee. They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.” Wikipedia. > On Mar 27, 2019, at 9:36 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” > > See . > > After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… > > > >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: >> >> Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. >> >> >> >> David J. >> >> >> So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? >> >> >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss >> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM >> To: C. G. Estabrook >> Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> >> >> Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. >> >> >> >> Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? >> >> >> >> Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> >> >> https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ >> >> Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. >> >> That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. >> >> >> >> Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. >> >> >> >> >> >> —CGE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 15:37:11 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:37:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?_=22Wall_Street=E2=80=99s_Think_Tank=22?= References: <36ce609ae68971b4f060ad9c7.5b66ba7c1e.20190327153319.4502bd7559.dcb04767@mail158.suw101.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: <81A5FF3D-5C02-492D-86B3-FFFB74AC08ED@gmail.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Monthly Review Press > Subject: New edition! "Wall Street’s Think Tank" > Date: March 27, 2019 at 10:33:51 AM CDT > To: > Reply-To: Monthly Review Press > > New from Monthly Review Press: Wall Street's Think Tank, new edition > Is this email not displaying correctly? > View it in your browser . > > New in Paperback, with Afterword: > > Wall Street’s Think Tank > The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2019 > > by Laurence H. Shoup > > “Lucidly written and deeply informed, this book reveals how the super-rich class organizes itself into a consciously directed, ruling plutocracy. Shoup offers a treasure of insights into a subject that seldom gets the attention it very much needs.” > —Michael Parenti, author, The Face of Imperialism > “Shoup [reveals] how a small group of planners, drawn from sectors of concentrated private and state power, closely linked, along with ‘experts’ whose commitments are congenial to their ends, have set the contours for much of recent history.... A welcome and very valuable contribution.” > —Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor (emeritus), MIT; writer and activist > “Wall Street’s Think Tank is a very important book, and its information is essential for an understanding of how our politics, and the world’s, has come to its sorry state.” > —Joan Roelofs, Counterpunch > The Council on Foreign Relations is the world’s most powerful private foreign-policy think tank and membership organization. Dominated by Wall Street, it claims among its members a high percentage of past and present top U.S. government officials as well as corporate leaders and influential figures in the fields of education, media, law, and nonprofit work. Wall Street’s Think Tank follows the Council on Foreign Relations from the 1970s to the present, and this new paperback edition includes an Afterword discussing the Trump Administration and the Council. > > In his book, Laurence Shoup explains how the Council on Foreign Relations and its members both shaped and responded to rapid changes in the world scene: globalization, the rise of China, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the launch of a “War on Terror.” Shoup argues that the CFR now operates in an era of “Neoliberal Geopolitics,” a worldwide paradigm that its members helped to establish and that reflects the interests of the U.S. ruling capitalist class. Shoup’s new Afterword brings the workings of the CFR up-to-date in three ways: It notes changes in the CFR’s leadership over the last three years; it examines the connections between the Trump Administration and the CFR; and it looks at recent U.S. policy toward North Korea to see whether the CFR’s hegemony over U.S. foreign policy has weakened or remained constant. Wall Street’s Think Tank is an essential guide to understanding the Council on Foreign Relations and the shadow it casts over recent history and current events. > > > > 369 pages | $26 pbk > > order online here > > > Laurence H. Shoup received his Ph.D. in History from Northwestern University in 1974. He is the author of five books, including Imperial Brain Trust(with William Minter) and Rulers and Rebels: A People’s History of Early California, 1769-1901, as well as many articles in scholarly and popular publications. He has taught U.S. history at the University of Illinois, San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University, and has been active in the anti-war and social justice movements since the 1960s. > follow on twitter | facebook | forward to a friend > Copyright © 2019 Monthly Review, All rights reserved. > > You are receiving this email either because you subscribed at monthlyreview.org , mronline.org , or made a purchase from Monthly Review Press (e.g., a book or Monthly Review magazine subscription). We send no more than one or two messages a month about new book releases and specials. You can opt out from mailings at any time. > > Our mailing address is: > Monthly Review > 134 W 29TH ST > STE 706 > New York, NY 10001 > > Add us to your address book > unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 15:57:04 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] War and rumors of war Message-ID: <48E8722C-AEC4-4D13-862A-99FA13B9F408@gmail.com> There must be a general strike across this country if the US uses military force against Venezuela and Russia. https://www.rt.com/news/454901-russia-leave-venezuela-trump/ ================================================ Russia must get out of Venezuela, all options open - Trump Published time: 27 Mar, 2019 15:32 Edited time: 27 Mar, 2019 15:51 US President Donald Trump has warned that Russia must get out of Venezuela. Two planeloads of Russian troops are currently in the Latin American country under the terms of a 2001 cooperation treaty. Around 100 Russian troops touched down in Venezuela on Saturday, a show of support for President Nicolas Maduro’s government. The move caused consternation in Washington, however, with Vice President Mike Pence calling the deployment an “unnecessary provocation.” Pence also called on Russia to withdraw its support of Maduro and “stand with Juan Guaido,” the Washington-sponsored opposition leader who declared himself interim president in January. The Russian Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, insisted that the deployment was carried out "in strict accordance with the constitution of that country and with full respect for its legal norms." US officials have repeatedly warned Russia against intervening in the Guaido/Maduro power struggle. National Security Adviser John Bolton tweeted on Monday that the “United States will not tolerate hostile foreign military powers meddling with the Western Hemisphere’s shared goals of democracy, security, and the rule of law.” ### From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 16:14:18 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:14:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] European Spring Message-ID: https://mondediplo.com/2019/03/12europe-diem From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Mar 27 16:19:59 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:19:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( NAFTA, stopping plant closings, etc. ). David J. -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM To: John W. Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” See . After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… > On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: > > Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. > > > > David J. > > > So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM > To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > > > > Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? > > > > Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > > > https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ > > Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. > > That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > > > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > > > > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Mar 27 16:23:29 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:23:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: But what the establishment feared from him was "the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations…” > On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:19 AM, David Johnson wrote: > > More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( NAFTA, stopping plant closings, etc. ). > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM > To: John W. > Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” > > See . > > After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… > > > >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: >> >> Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. >> >> >> >> David J. >> >> >> So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? >> >> >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss >> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM >> To: C. G. Estabrook >> Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> >> >> Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. >> >> >> >> Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? >> >> >> >> Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> >> >> https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ >> >> Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. >> >> That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. >> >> >> >> Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. >> >> >> >> >> >> —CGE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Mar 27 16:37:44 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:37:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Russia and the Democrats Message-ID: <00a101d4e4bb$67df6d20$379e4760$@comcast.net> This statement from the article I think pretty well sums up what the bottom line problem was for people who bought into the Russia gate conspiracy theory. In essence, not knowing who the corporate special interests are who control this country and believing the corporate owned and financed media, the mouthpiece of the ruling class. - " The New York Times and Washington Post have been publishing politically motivated 'fake news' in support of establishment interests since their inceptions. Their service to powerful interests is why they are still around. The FBI, CIA and NSA have been putting out politically motivated bullshit since their respective inceptions. They exist to serve the rich and powerful against all comers." Russia and the Democrats: Rob Urie's Scathing (and Irrefutable) Indictment of the Party's Moral Hypocrisy and Sheer Imbecility Two years ago authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes wrote in their book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign that within 24 hours of her 2016 electoral loss, Hillary Clinton's senior campaign staff decided to blame the loss on Russian interference. Given the apparent source of the charge in opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign, the move seemed both desperate and pathetic- a thread for Clinton's true believers to hang onto, an effort to keep campaign contributions rolling in and a ploy to cleave liberals from the left through red-baiting. For perspective, from the time leading up to the 2016 election through today, I chose to live amongst poor and working-class people of color, with occasional forays into the rural working and middle classes and the urban bourgeois. What became apparent early on is that the audience for the Russian interference story was the urban and suburban bourgeois who had seen their lots by-and-large restored by Barack Obama's bank bailouts and who had no knowledge of, or interaction with, the 90% of the country that is living, by degree, hand-to-mouth. What this implies is that the received wisdom amongst bourgeois Democrats- the bosses, bank managers, academics, realtors and administrative class, looks to be what it is: a combination of class loathing that their 'lessors' didn't perceive the munificent blessing of their electoral choice; mass delusion on the part of self-styled 'high-information voters' about who really controls American 'democracy;' and studied ignorance of the consequences of the last half-century of bi-partisan neoliberal governance. As I wrote in early 2018: "Prior to the 2016 presidential election, if one were to ask what single act could seal a new Cold War with Russia, align liberals and progressives with the operational core of the American military-industrial-surveillance complex, expose the preponderance of left-activism as an offshoot of Democratic Party operations and consign most of what remained to personal invective against an empirically dangerous leader, consensus would likely have it that doing so wouldn't be easy." _____ The Clinton campaign's decision to blame her electoral loss on Russian interference demonstrates why she was, and still is, unqualified to hold elected office. In the first, the U.S. - Russian rivalry is backed-up by hair-trigger nuclear arsenals that could end the world in a matter of minutes. Inciting tensions based on self-serving lies is stunningly reckless. In the second, the claim demonstrates utter contempt for her most loyal followers by feeding them purposely misleading explanations of the loss. And most damagingly for political opponents of Donald Trump, these actions give credence to the insurgent status of his retro-Republicanism against liberal and left defenders of the political establishment. Most damaging to the burgeoning left in the U.S. is the deeply ugly character assassination of poor and working-class voters carried out by the urban bourgeois, many from the self-described radical left. People I know and like, but with whom I disagree politically but am working hard to convert, have spent the last three years being derided as traitorous, marginally literate hicks too stupid to know they are pawns of the Kremlin. The irony, if you care to call it that, is that they knew the Russian interference story was cynical bullshit all along while the graduate degree crowd was following every twist and turn as if it were true knowledge. What became apparent early on is that the audience for the Russian interference story was the urban and suburban bourgeois who had seen their lots by-and-large restored by Barack Obama's bank bailouts and who had no knowledge of, or interaction with, the 90% of the country that is living, by degree, hand-to-mouth. The Democratic Party 'leadership' that pursued this story is as stupid as it is corrupt. The purpose of Russia-gate was apparently to keep the Party faithful, faithful. But as was demonstrated in 2016, the faithful alone can't win an election. This leadership turned what could have been an effective 'give 'em enough rope' strategy against arrogant jackass Trump back on itself. The establishment-left had been in the process of giving self-described socialists someone to vote for in 2020. Too-clever-by-half liberal twaddle about 'post-truth' now has liberals- universally conflated with the left, perceived as both idiots and liars. And rightly so. Democrats who spent the last three years making less than plausible (and politically retrograde) accusations against Mr. Trump likely still don't understand their current position. Their call for an exhaustive investigation carried out by people they trust was honored. While the investigation was underway, the mainstream press put one ludicrous fantasy after another forward as news. This while a host of real issues affecting real people's lives were studiously ignored. As incredulous as I am that it could be done, liberal Democrats have made corrupt oligarch Trump appear to be righteously aggrieved. Who says these people have no talent? The New York Times and Washington Post have been publishing politically motivated 'fake news' in support of establishment interests since their inceptions. Their service to powerful interests is why they are still around. The FBI, CIA and NSA have been putting out politically motivated bullshit since their respective inceptions. They exist to serve the rich and powerful against all comers. To claim these as bastions of integrity was always a tough sell. To continue to claim it is the stuff from which revolutions are made. In this case, right-wing revolutions. While the urban bourgeois have long been dismissive of the 'burn it down' contingent of Trump voters, they seem incapable of seeing their own roles as defenders of the establishment as corrupt and ultimately, politically suicidal. I voted for a woman for president and a black man for vice president in 2016. But they weren't Democrats. Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she is a corrupt, neoliberal, militaristic piece of shit. Ironically, or not, most of Trump voters I've spoken with know more about the Democrats' actual record than the highly educated urban bourgeois pontificating on NPR or in the New York Times. A quick bet is that the 2020 presidential election is now Donald Trump's to lose. Lying sacks of shit like James Clapper and John Brennan will tie their lots to whomever will fund their adventures in mal-governance as the world burns and species become extinct. The tragedy here is that there are real issues in need of resolution. The Democrats' three-year adventure in red-baiting served to legitimate a financial-military-industrial complex that apparently intends to end the planet as it makes as many people miserable in the process as is possible. Congratulations assholes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 16:37:50 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:37:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: The link between the Zionist neocons and the MIC was personified by Henry Jackson, the Senator from Boeing (WA). On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:23 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > But what the establishment feared from him was "the loss of its Russian > enemy to normalized relations…” > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:19 AM, David Johnson < > davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: > > > > More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( > NAFTA, stopping plant closings, etc. ). > > > > David J. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM > > To: John W. > > Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your > bracket) > > > > Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and > the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex > determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that > goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; > [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” > > > > See < > https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/03/25/now-we-will-find-out-if-trump-is-really-the-president-or-merely-a-figurehead/ > >. > > > > After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his > administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them > inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… > > > > > > > >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson < > davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. > >> > >> > >> > >> David J. > >> > >> > >> So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against > the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented > Russiagate out of whole cloth? > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] > On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss > >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM > >> To: C. G. Estabrook > >> Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook > >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your > bracket) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > >> > >> > >> > >> Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in > point of fact? > >> > >> > >> > >> Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ > >> > >> Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political > establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately > afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war > provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and > China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. > >> > >> That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > >> > >> > >> > >> Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> —CGE > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 Wed Mar 27 16:47:36 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:47:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00ae01d4e4bc$c8af4020$5a0dc060$@comcast.net> Indeed Carl, 90 % of the ruling class and corporate America supported Hillary Clinton, including the Koch Bros. and Henry Kissinger. Clinton and her husband have been loyal servants to the ruling class for decades and hence she was predictable. Trump on the other hand although a billionaire, was never a team player and the ruling class was uncertain as to how serious he was about his anti-NAFTA -Free trade statements and in particular his anti-military interventionist statements. One main function amongst several reasons for the Russia gate conspiracy theory was to whip Trump in shape to not stray from the foreign policy agenda. And it worked. But what I was reacting to was your statement implying that Trump was serious in changing foreign policy. He more than likely had no intentions of doing so, just re-organizing the focus towards other areas / countries. David J. -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:23 AM To: David Johnson Cc: John W.; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) But what the establishment feared from him was "the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations…” > On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:19 AM, David Johnson wrote: > > More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( NAFTA, stopping plant closings, etc. ). > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM > To: John W. > Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” > > See . > > After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… > > > >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: >> >> Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. >> >> >> >> David J. >> >> >> So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? >> >> >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss >> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM >> To: C. G. Estabrook >> Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> >> >> Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. >> >> >> >> Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? >> >> >> >> Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> >> >> https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ >> >> Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. >> >> That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. >> >> >> >> Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. >> >> >> >> >> >> —CGE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 16:54:26 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:54:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: <2fcfcdcc-24f9-5282-8386-24659a88b82f@forestfield.org> References: <2fcfcdcc-24f9-5282-8386-24659a88b82f@forestfield.org> Message-ID: All of the parts are on the FB event page (the angle gets straightened out after a while). The first 45 minutes are the 2 speakers other than Nina Paley; Nina basically reads the statement that is on her blog. The rest of often-interesting discussion. https://www.facebook.com/WLRNews4Women/videos/805757636458145/?hc_ref=ARQ4PWJ4QXmRdnTF_NhHHFpcMkEr5eN4ZSBPn5lrPaiHn730HKB7kXERNK00PnRBJo0&__xts__[0]=68.ARAycQRbB97m4vOaDZRoqX44Gy3rPaAJUTv2nuzDGBIlndyYv0GvPocEW1Ja8JP9kiuYeP3WBO0snioEt_5mW-tPiLXiOtOIHSmSImpTOynRP1l6HVCVuN5qBeaDksfx2mbWcktFHb__Glc-CFzLD9TRuHCOAvT0tmJM9iD5y3DTfB63FvDZ9Fcpg6LUtonUqwziwRAQQ9xEnefnSRMDs2D5PdLvFEXgWtakpcMLpmCDsgn5YoBkjXIrArqGrhXTKbMX4np5nel0B_2FlB6jv7ZKYMB1m-m96v82sjYr9ShxjRDOXBwVyAdW1hDfCjuBGkLlU6C4wx79zo2guQq-pUzrf8lk4ixQAi6zz6xf4tkB4vQB37gX2WPMterYNNxT2FJxo5Jxe5tVBfRmV66jSp7daUtP6sT4GnobPJ7pTtGiZCo1B3lIdRjgQqdxwpXTsL7T8Boa_nlV4MC4MAjPg4l0Dpz2TSIcXA7eU7jIp0Vdt2LRzmPc5fTa9_1BUv3RkVLZy4B3b3rmOSuJP2__t2JwK3N7zhrR&__tn__=FC-R On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:22 AM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > David Green wrote: > > It was video recorded by two different people, so I assume it will be > > available for viewing, which I recommend. > > https://vimeo.com/326585294 is the Q&A segment of the "Does Sex Matter?" > panel discussion. It's listed as part 4 and Nina Paley has said that > she'll > upload more parts later in > > http://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/03/26/q-and-a-from-the-does-sex-matter-panel/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Mar 27 16:56:30 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:56:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: <00ae01d4e4bc$c8af4020$5a0dc060$@comcast.net> References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> <00ae01d4e4bc$c8af4020$5a0dc060$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6194738E-A011-4AE7-A01E-5537FB8AFB6A@newsfromneptune.com> Perhaps we (& the world) would have been better off with Clinton, a consistent war-criminal, than with Trump, an erratic one. I was not asserting that Trump was [or was not] serious in changing foreign policy. The important point (the source of Russiagate) is what the establishment feared from him. > On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:47 AM, David Johnson wrote: > > Indeed Carl, > > 90 % of the ruling class and corporate America supported Hillary Clinton, including the Koch Bros. and Henry Kissinger. Clinton and her husband have been loyal servants to the ruling class for decades and hence she was predictable. Trump on the other hand although a billionaire, was never a team player and the ruling class was uncertain as to how serious he was about his anti-NAFTA -Free trade statements and in particular his anti-military interventionist statements. > One main function amongst several reasons for the Russia gate conspiracy theory was to whip Trump in shape to not stray from the foreign policy agenda. And it worked. > > But what I was reacting to was your statement implying that Trump was serious in changing foreign policy. He more than likely had no intentions of doing so, just re-organizing the focus towards other areas / countries. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:23 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: John W.; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > But what the establishment feared from him was "the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations…” > > >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:19 AM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( NAFTA, stopping plant closings, etc. ). >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM >> To: John W. >> Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) >> >> Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” >> >> See . >> >> After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… >> >> >> >>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. >>> >>> >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> >>> So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM >>> To: C. G. Estabrook >>> Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. >>> >>> >>> >>> Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? >>> >>> >>> >>> Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ >>> >>> Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. >>> >>> That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. >>> >>> >>> >>> Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> >> > > From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Mar 27 17:25:07 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:25:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: <6194738E-A011-4AE7-A01E-5537FB8AFB6A@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> <00ae01d4e4bc$c8af4020$5a0dc060$@comcast.net> <6194738E-A011-4AE7-A01E-5537FB8AFB6A@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <00c801d4e4c2$135e6a10$3a1b3e30$@comcast.net> Fucked either way I am sorry to say. David J. -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:57 AM To: David Johnson Cc: John W.; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) Perhaps we (& the world) would have been better off with Clinton, a consistent war-criminal, than with Trump, an erratic one. I was not asserting that Trump was [or was not] serious in changing foreign policy. The important point (the source of Russiagate) is what the establishment feared from him. > On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:47 AM, David Johnson wrote: > > Indeed Carl, > > 90 % of the ruling class and corporate America supported Hillary Clinton, including the Koch Bros. and Henry Kissinger. Clinton and her husband have been loyal servants to the ruling class for decades and hence she was predictable. Trump on the other hand although a billionaire, was never a team player and the ruling class was uncertain as to how serious he was about his anti-NAFTA -Free trade statements and in particular his anti-military interventionist statements. > One main function amongst several reasons for the Russia gate conspiracy theory was to whip Trump in shape to not stray from the foreign policy agenda. And it worked. > > But what I was reacting to was your statement implying that Trump was serious in changing foreign policy. He more than likely had no intentions of doing so, just re-organizing the focus towards other areas / countries. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:23 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: John W.; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > But what the establishment feared from him was "the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations…” > > >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:19 AM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( NAFTA, stopping plant closings, etc. ). >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM >> To: John W. >> Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) >> >> Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” >> >> See . >> >> After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… >> >> >> >>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. >>> >>> >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> >>> So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM >>> To: C. G. Estabrook >>> Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. >>> >>> >>> >>> Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? >>> >>> >>> >>> Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ >>> >>> Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. >>> >>> That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. >>> >>> >>> >>> Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> >> > > From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 27 17:26:48 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:26:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] War and rumors of war In-Reply-To: <48E8722C-AEC4-4D13-862A-99FA13B9F408@gmail.com> References: <48E8722C-AEC4-4D13-862A-99FA13B9F408@gmail.com> Message-ID: I couldn’t agree more, let’s hope this is just more bluster by Trump and not to be taken seriously. > On Mar 27, 2019, at 08:57, C G Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > There must be a general strike across this country if the US uses military force against Venezuela and Russia. > > https://www.rt.com/news/454901-russia-leave-venezuela-trump/ > ================================================ > Russia must get out of Venezuela, all options open - Trump > Published time: 27 Mar, 2019 15:32 > Edited time: 27 Mar, 2019 15:51 > > US President Donald Trump has warned that Russia must get out of Venezuela. Two planeloads of Russian troops are currently in the Latin American country under the terms of a 2001 cooperation treaty. > > Around 100 Russian troops touched down in Venezuela on Saturday, a show of support for President Nicolas Maduro’s government. The move caused consternation in Washington, however, with Vice President Mike Pence calling the deployment an “unnecessary provocation.” > > Pence also called on Russia to withdraw its support of Maduro and “stand with Juan Guaido,” the Washington-sponsored opposition leader who declared himself interim president in January. > > The Russian Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, insisted that the deployment was carried out "in strict accordance with the constitution of that country and with full respect for its legal norms." > > US officials have repeatedly warned Russia against intervening in the Guaido/Maduro power struggle. National Security Adviser John Bolton tweeted on Monday that the “United States will not tolerate hostile foreign military powers meddling with the Western Hemisphere’s shared goals of democracy, security, and the rule of law.” > > ### > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 27 17:38:16 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:38:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=22Wall_Street=E2=80=99s_Think_Tank=22?= In-Reply-To: <81A5FF3D-5C02-492D-86B3-FFFB74AC08ED@gmail.com> References: <36ce609ae68971b4f060ad9c7.5b66ba7c1e.20190327153319.4502bd7559.dcb04767@mail158.suw101.mcdlv.net> <81A5FF3D-5C02-492D-86B3-FFFB74AC08ED@gmail.com> Message-ID: I have the original hardback published in 2015, it’s indispensable to understanding who/what is running the country. It lays the foundation for all that follows, such as “The Deep State,” which is less academic, a bit more trivial, naming the names of those in power in DC and their connections. Previous to “Wall Streets Think Tank,” also written by Laurence Shoup, is his “Imperial Brain Trust," written in collaboration with Wm. Minter, publ. 1977, on the same topic. Of the three, I found “Wall Streets Think Tank," the most valuable and enlightening. On Mar 27, 2019, at 08:37, C G Estabrook > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Monthly Review Press > Subject: New edition! "Wall Street’s Think Tank" Date: March 27, 2019 at 10:33:51 AM CDT To: > Reply-To: Monthly Review Press > New from Monthly Review Press: Wall Street's Think Tank, new edition Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. [http://gallery.mailchimp.com/36ce609ae68971b4f060ad9c7/images/email_banner_new2.png] New in Paperback, with Afterword: Wall Street’s Think Tank The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2019 by Laurence H. Shoup “Lucidly written and deeply informed, this book reveals how the super-rich class organizes itself into a consciously directed, ruling plutocracy. Shoup offers a treasure of insights into a subject that seldom gets the attention it very much needs.” —Michael Parenti, author, The Face of Imperialism “Shoup [reveals] how a small group of planners, drawn from sectors of concentrated private and state power, closely linked, along with ‘experts’ whose commitments are congenial to their ends, have set the contours for much of recent history.... A welcome and very valuable contribution.” —Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor (emeritus), MIT; writer and activist “Wall Street’s Think Tank is a very important book, and its information is essential for an understanding of how our politics, and the world’s, has come to its sorry state.” —Joan Roelofs, Counterpunch The Council on Foreign Relations is the world’s most powerful private foreign-policy think tank and membership organization. Dominated by Wall Street, it claims among its members a high percentage of past and present top U.S. government officials as well as corporate leaders and influential figures in the fields of education, media, law, and nonprofit work. Wall Street’s Think Tank follows the Council on Foreign Relations from the 1970s to the present, and this new paperback edition includes an Afterword discussing the Trump Administration and the Council. In his book, Laurence Shoup explains how the Council on Foreign Relations and its members both shaped and responded to rapid changes in the world scene: globalization, the rise of China, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the launch of a “War on Terror.” Shoup argues that the CFR now operates in an era of “Neoliberal Geopolitics,” a worldwide paradigm that its members helped to establish and that reflects the interests of the U.S. ruling capitalist class. Shoup’s new Afterword brings the workings of the CFR up-to-date in three ways: It notes changes in the CFR’s leadership over the last three years; it examines the connections between the Trump Administration and the CFR; and it looks at recent U.S. policy toward North Korea to see whether the CFR’s hegemony over U.S. foreign policy has weakened or remained constant. Wall Street’s Think Tank is an essential guide to understanding the Council on Foreign Relations and the shadow it casts over recent history and current events. [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36ce609ae68971b4f060ad9c7/images/e0a06098-60bb-47fd-a9fb-b5ecbb2a4852.png] 369 pages | $26 pbk order online here ________________________________ Laurence H. Shoup received his Ph.D. in History from Northwestern University in 1974. He is the author of five books, including Imperial Brain Trust(with William Minter) and Rulers and Rebels: A People’s History of Early California, 1769-1901, as well as many articles in scholarly and popular publications. He has taught U.S. history at the University of Illinois, San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University, and has been active in the anti-war and social justice movements since the 1960s. follow on twitter | facebook | forward to a friend Copyright © 2019 Monthly Review, All rights reserved. [Monthly Review logo]You are receiving this email either because you subscribed at monthlyreview.org, mronline.org, or made a purchase from Monthly Review Press (e.g., a book or Monthly Review magazine subscription). We send no more than one or two messages a month about new book releases and specials. You can opt out from mailings at any time. Our mailing address is: Monthly Review 134 W 29TH ST STE 706 New York, NY 10001 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 20:58:39 2019 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 15:58:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:19 AM David Johnson wrote: More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( NAFTA, > stopping plant closings, etc. ). > > David J. > Correct. I've always been amazed at Carl's gullibility when it comes to tRump. > -----Original Message----- > From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM > To: John W. > Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your > bracket) > > Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the > academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex > determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that > goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; > [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” > > See < > https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/03/25/now-we-will-find-out-if-trump-is-really-the-president-or-merely-a-figurehead/ > >. > > After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his > administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them > inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson < > davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. > > > > > > > > David J. > > > > > > So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against > the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented > Russiagate out of whole cloth? > > > > > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] > On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM > > To: C. G. Estabrook > > Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your > bracket) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > > > > > Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > > > > > > > > Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in > point of fact? > > > > > > > > Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ > > > > Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political > establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately > afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war > provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and > China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. > > > > That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > > > > > > > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > > > > > > > > > > > —CGE > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 kmedina67 at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 21:20:19 2019 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 16:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks David for posting this. For what it is worth, - I like Nina Paley. - I strongly *disagree* with Nina on *this issue*. - I do admire that she is having public discussions though. Let me explain how I disagree. * I believe that gender is not as binary as Nina believes it to be. * I believe that nature is not male / female binary. * I believe that people should gather together to work for human rights; I believe that "feminists" should JOIN the transgender rights movement. Nina believes that the transgender movement takes away from, uses, takes advantage of the feminist movement. How do I agree? * People should work together for human rights. -karen medina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 22:19:14 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:19:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karen, Nina's exact point is that gender is *not *binary, but that (biological) sex is. The questions she raises, intelligently discussed for 2 hours on Saturday, have to do (first) with how biological *sex *changes (hormones, surgery), should be prescribed, especially to minors, especially without parental consent; also discussed on Saturday was the advisability of biological men being in women's prisons, shelters, and other (biological) women's spaces, including athletic venues. She also resists, justifiably I think, the demand by some to use pronouns other than those that relate to biological sex; she describes such demands as of a fascist nature. Of course, she doesn't care how trans people address themselves or each other. All of this notwithstanding, one has to be shocked at the repressive reaction (arguably violating her rights, even human rights) she has received as a result of questioning current conventional views among some progressives and in gender studies academic programs, including Mimi Nguyen at the U of I (see Nina's blog post). Those who gathered upstairs at UFL on Saturday, an hour before the panel, apparently weren't willing to listen to what these 3 panelists, one a trans-woman, had to say; or what the audience response might be (which was respectful and intelligent). While the f(ascist) word is over-used these days, and may be over-used even in this context, I think Nina's point is correct: those who represent the views of trans-people do so in a way that invokes human rights while depriving others of their civil rights, including "no-platforming", as Nina has been subject to. That might be called a fascist attitude, although I might call it something else--at the very least, crowd-sourced arrogance. Unfortunately, this isn't as simple as according people human rights. The nature of these rights, and possible conflicts among these rights, needs to be elaborated. Best, David On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:20 PM Karen Medina via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Thanks David for posting this. > > For what it is worth, > > - I like Nina Paley. > - I strongly *disagree* with Nina on *this issue*. > - I do admire that she is having public discussions though. > > Let me explain how I disagree. > * I believe that gender is not as binary as Nina believes it to be. > * I believe that nature is not male / female binary. > * I believe that people should gather together to work for human rights; I > believe that "feminists" should JOIN the transgender rights movement. Nina > believes that the transgender movement takes away from, uses, takes > advantage of the feminist movement. > > How do I agree? > * People should work together for human rights. > > -karen medina > _______________________________________________ > 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 carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Mar 27 22:28:11 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:28:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <34674FCA-2CD8-4446-9AB8-8694493F8781@newsfromneptune.com> It doesn’t matter whether Trump was lying about his foreign policy or not. What matters is what the political establishment thought he might do. They feared he would abandon the belligerent policy of previous administrations. They worked to make sure that he couldn’t do that, even if he wanted to. > On Mar 27, 2019, at 3:58 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:19 AM David Johnson wrote: > > More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( NAFTA, stopping plant closings, etc. ). > > David J. > > Correct. I've always been amazed at Carl's gullibility when it comes to tRump. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM > To: John W. > Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” > > See . > > After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: > > > > Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. > > > > > > > > David J. > > > > > > So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? > > > > > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM > > To: C. G. Estabrook > > Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > > > > > Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > > > > > > > > Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? > > > > > > > > Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > > > > > > > https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ > > > > Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. > > > > That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > > > > > > > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > > > > > > > > > > > —CGE > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 22:32:09 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A1CA656-6FBE-44C5-85B7-3EE2A075F8FE@gmail.com> Nina’s position, as David presents it, seems to me eminently reasonable. —CGE > On Mar 27, 2019, at 5:19 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Karen, > > Nina's exact point is that gender is not binary, but that (biological) sex is. > > The questions she raises, intelligently discussed for 2 hours on Saturday, have to do (first) with how biological sex changes (hormones, surgery), should be prescribed, especially to minors, especially without parental consent; also discussed on Saturday was the advisability of biological men being in women's prisons, shelters, and other (biological) women's spaces, including athletic venues. > > She also resists, justifiably I think, the demand by some to use pronouns other than those that relate to biological sex; she describes such demands as of a fascist nature. Of course, she doesn't care how trans people address themselves or each other. > > All of this notwithstanding, one has to be shocked at the repressive reaction (arguably violating her rights, even human rights) she has received as a result of questioning current conventional views among some progressives and in gender studies academic programs, including Mimi Nguyen at the U of I (see Nina's blog post). > > Those who gathered upstairs at UFL on Saturday, an hour before the panel, apparently weren't willing to listen to what these 3 panelists, one a trans-woman, had to say; or what the audience response might be (which was respectful and intelligent). While the f(ascist) word is over-used these days, and may be over-used even in this context, I think Nina's point is correct: those who represent the views of trans-people do so in a way that invokes human rights while depriving others of their civil rights, including "no-platforming", as Nina has been subject to. That might be called a fascist attitude, although I might call it something else--at the very least, crowd-sourced arrogance. > > Unfortunately, this isn't as simple as according people human rights. The nature of these rights, and possible conflicts among these rights, needs to be elaborated. > > Best, > > David > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:20 PM Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: > Thanks David for posting this. > > For what it is worth, > • I like Nina Paley. > • I strongly disagree with Nina on this issue. > • I do admire that she is having public discussions though. > Let me explain how I disagree. > * I believe that gender is not as binary as Nina believes it to be. > * I believe that nature is not male / female binary. > * I believe that people should gather together to work for human rights; I believe that "feminists" should JOIN the transgender rights movement. Nina believes that the transgender movement takes away from, uses, takes advantage of the feminist movement. > > How do I agree? > * People should work together for human rights. > > -karen medina > _______________________________________________ > 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 kmedina67 at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 23:21:32 2019 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 18:21:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > > that (biological) sex is [binary]. > It is not. As a biologist, I say biological sex is NOT binary. Let us take this one topic on -karen medina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 23:32:41 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 18:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> That’s hardly a unanimous opinion: e.g., . > On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > that (biological) sex is [binary]. > > It is not. > As a biologist, I say biological sex is NOT binary. > > Let us take this one topic on > > -karen medina > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Mar 28 03:59:12 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:59:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rise of populism in Ukraine Message-ID: Ukraine's ultra-right increasingly visible as election nears https://apnews.com/e971db860c7a4c12a5240fc08ce6c95e From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Mar 28 04:10:16 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 04:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: <34674FCA-2CD8-4446-9AB8-8694493F8781@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> , <34674FCA-2CD8-4446-9AB8-8694493F8781@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss on behalf of C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 5:28 PM To: John W. Cc: Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) It doesn’t matter whether Trump was lying about his foreign policy or not. What matters is what the political establishment thought he might do. They feared he would abandon the belligerent policy of previous administrations. They worked to make sure that he couldn’t do that, even if he wanted to. > On Mar 27, 2019, at 3:58 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:19 AM David Johnson wrote: > > More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( NAFTA, stopping plant closings, etc. ). > > David J. > > Correct. I've always been amazed at Carl's gullibility when it comes to tRump. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM > To: John W. > Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary’s DNC…” > > See . > > After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it’s better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around… > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: > > > > Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. > > > > > > > > David J. > > > > > > So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? > > > > > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM > > To: C. G. Estabrook > > Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > > > > > Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > > > > > > > > Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? > > > > > > > > Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > > > > > > > https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/ > > > > Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. > > > > That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > > > > > > > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > > > > > > > > > > > —CGE > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Putin stmt.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 2218 bytes Desc: Putin stmt.rtfd.zip URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Mar 28 04:14:52 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 04:14:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Putin statement in February Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Putin stmt.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 2218 bytes Desc: Putin stmt.rtfd.zip URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Mar 28 04:52:03 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 23:52:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Most New Zealanders do not support sex self-ID References: <20101343.21067.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <688F88DB-7802-4208-9475-8D625C0F7125@newsfromneptune.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Redline > Subject: [New post] Most New Zealanders do not support sex self-ID > Date: March 27, 2019 at 11:38:09 PM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Reply-To: Redline > > Respond to this post by replying above this line > New post on Redline > > > Most New Zealanders do not support sex self-ID by Daphna > The women's rights campaign group Stand Up for Women has carried out an an important piece of research around knowledge of self-sex identification proposed law changes. They issued a press release today with a summary of the findings of a survey of 1000 people. Stand Up For Women Press Release Despite mostly positive coverage of […] > > Read more of this post > Daphna | March 28, 2019 at 5:38 pm | Tags: self ID , Speak Up For Women , trans activism , transgender , women's rights | Categories: Democracy movements , Women's rights & women's liberation | URL: https://wp.me/p1mlhd-5tN > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Redline. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions . > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://rdln.wordpress.com/2019/03/28/most-new-zealanders-do-not-support-sex-self-id/ > Thanks for flying with  WordPress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 04:55:19 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 23:55:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Venezuela fact-finding mission reports on complex situation References: Message-ID: <8DE6033F-073D-470C-8ECC-5510EB17AE82@gmail.com> > > https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-fact-finding-mission-reports-complex-situation > From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 06:08:18 2019 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 01:08:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling the question to be asked, one can control the debate. The problem with their specific approach -- adopting one aspect of humanity and labeling it as Material Reality, as if there weren't other equally worthy aspects -- is that they use it to devalue the existence of trans people.     In the discussion there were listed a number of reasons why someone might undertake a gender transition, and all the reasons brought up were, well, unsavory.  Young people duped into giving up their birth gender before they knew what it would mean for them, men wanting (lesbian?) women as romantic partners, gay men wanting men as romantic partners, male prisoners wanting to be placed in women's prisons, men wanting to compete in women's sports, men feeling burdened by male privilege and wanting to take on the glow of victimhood by becoming part of an oppressed group, women "cutting off their breasts" to gain male privilege (this last from an audience member).     Gender dysphoria was mentioned, but I didn't hear any panelist take it seriously.   A recurring theme was predatory behavior by trans people - and by trans activists. Also that what it means to be a woman, legally and socially, was being redefined - by men. One of the panelists offered a definition of "intersectionality" which is the neoliberal perversion of that idea -- where the goal is to prove how privileged or un-privileged you yourself are, and place yourself properly in the hierarchy of oppression.   This is *not* the original meaning of the term, and not what we should allow it to be turned into.   The article below gives a better understanding of it for this context - I've forgotten who posted this recently but thanks to you if you're reading this:     https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/ I don't want to claim that the panel had no legitimate complaints.   And there were some thoughtful things said by some in the audience.  But the above might give a flavor of why some people are very angry at things Nina has been saying. Nina noted that one distinction she wants kept clear was that between birth sex and gender presentation.   In her opinion, laws protecting women should apply only to the former, not at all to the latter.     Of course if you accept that, you are throwing trans and other alternative gender people under the bus, legally. However, one of the audience members struggled for a while and offered a suggestion that I think could help.   The law could, she proposed, provide separate protections based on sex, on sexual preference, and on gender presentation.  It wouldn't be necessary to legally redefine women while still protecting trans and other alternative genders.       Stuart On 3/27/19 6:32 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > That’s hardly a unanimous opinion: e.g., . > > > >> On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >>> that (biological) sex is [binary]. >> It is not. >> As a biologist, I say biological sex is NOT binary. >> >> Let us take this one topic on >> >> -karen medina >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Mar 28 13:05:05 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:05:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006101d4e566$dd280780$97781680$@comcast.net> “ One of the panelists offered a definition of "intersectionality" which is the neoliberal perversion of that idea -- where the goal is to prove how privileged or un-privileged you yourself are, and place yourself properly in the hierarchy of oppression. This is *not* the original meaning of the term, and not what we should allow it to be turned into. “ Excellent point Stuart ! For this topic as well as other analysis. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 1:08 AM To: C G Estabrook; Karen Medina Cc: Peace-discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling the question to be asked, one can control the debate. The problem with their specific approach -- adopting one aspect of humanity and labeling it as Material Reality, as if there weren't other equally worthy aspects -- is that they use it to devalue the existence of trans people. In the discussion there were listed a number of reasons why someone might undertake a gender transition, and all the reasons brought up were, well, unsavory. Young people duped into giving up their birth gender before they knew what it would mean for them, men wanting (lesbian?) women as romantic partners, gay men wanting men as romantic partners, male prisoners wanting to be placed in women's prisons, men wanting to compete in women's sports, men feeling burdened by male privilege and wanting to take on the glow of victimhood by becoming part of an oppressed group, women "cutting off their breasts" to gain male privilege (this last from an audience member). Gender dysphoria was mentioned, but I didn't hear any panelist take it seriously. A recurring theme was predatory behavior by trans people - and by trans activists. Also that what it means to be a woman, legally and socially, was being redefined - by men. One of the panelists offered a definition of "intersectionality" which is the neoliberal perversion of that idea -- where the goal is to prove how privileged or un-privileged you yourself are, and place yourself properly in the hierarchy of oppression. This is *not* the original meaning of the term, and not what we should allow it to be turned into. The article below gives a better understanding of it for this context - I've forgotten who posted this recently but thanks to you if you're reading this: https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/ I don't want to claim that the panel had no legitimate complaints. And there were some thoughtful things said by some in the audience. But the above might give a flavor of why some people are very angry at things Nina has been saying. Nina noted that one distinction she wants kept clear was that between birth sex and gender presentation. In her opinion, laws protecting women should apply only to the former, not at all to the latter. Of course if you accept that, you are throwing trans and other alternative gender people under the bus, legally. However, one of the audience members struggled for a while and offered a suggestion that I think could help. The law could, she proposed, provide separate protections based on sex, on sexual preference, and on gender presentation. It wouldn't be necessary to legally redefine women while still protecting trans and other alternative genders. Stuart On 3/27/19 6:32 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: That’s hardly a unanimous opinion: e.g., . On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: that (biological) sex is [binary]. It is not. As a biologist, I say biological sex is NOT binary. Let us take this one topic on -karen medina _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 28 13:06:24 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:06:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) In-Reply-To: References: <8533A22F-7557-4DCC-A66B-A9D4C1735054@newsfromneptune.com> <005f01d4e4a1$d88f13f0$89ad3bd0$@comcast.net> <5B4236F7-17E1-430F-B9F9-8DA854CB5E86@newsfromneptune.com> <009901d4e4b8$ed34e890$c79eb9b0$@comcast.net> , <34674FCA-2CD8-4446-9AB8-8694493F8781@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <006e01d4e567$0cb074b0$26115e10$@comcast.net> Agreed ! David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:10 PM To: Peace Discuss Cc: Bill Strutz Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss on behalf of C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 5:28 PM To: John W. Cc: Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) It doesn't matter whether Trump was lying about his foreign policy or not. What matters is what the political establishment thought he might do. They feared he would abandon the belligerent policy of previous administrations. They worked to make sure that he couldn't do that, even if he wanted to. > On Mar 27, 2019, at 3:58 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:19 AM David Johnson wrote: > > More likely Trump lied Carl, just like he did on most other issues ( NAFTA, stopping plant closings, etc. ). > > David J. > > Correct. I've always been amazed at Carl's gullibility when it comes to tRump. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:36 AM > To: John W. > Cc: David Johnson; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > Neocons (in both parties) are the fronts in government, the press, and the academy for "an utterly corrupt and immoral military/security complex determined to protect its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it from the loss of its Russian enemy to normalized relations; [it includes] Hillary's DNC." > > See . > > After attacking them in the campaign, Trump has brought them into his administration, perhaps on the LBJ theory that it's better to have them inside the tent pissing out that the other way around. > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:50 AM, John W. wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:34 AM David Johnson wrote: > > > > Neo-Con war mongers are bi-partisan John. > > > > > > > > David J. > > > > > > So I'm told. Did Pompeo and Bolton, then, concoct the smear against the Prince of Peace, Donald J. Trump? Are they the ones who invented Russiagate out of whole cloth? > > > > > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W. via Peace-discuss > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:28 AM > > To: C. G. Estabrook > > Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mueller madness (fill out your bracket) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:41 AM C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > > > > > Warmongers like Pompeo and Bolton. > > > > > > > > Right. And they're Republicans, are they not? Trump's Republicans, in point of fact? > > > > > > > > Now I'm even MORE confused. :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:16 AM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:14 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > > > > > > > https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-m ost-wrong/ > > > > Amidst all the fun, it's worthwhile remembering why the US political establishment concocted this smear against Trump: they were desperately afraid he would reduce the Obama administration's wars and war provocations, which were designed to prevent the emergence of Russia and China as what Brzezinski called 'peer competitors' for US economic hegemony. > > > > That fear has subsided, as the neocons are back in control. > > > > > > > > Wait, Carl. Who are the neocons again? Please remind me. > > > > > > > > > > > > -CGE > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 28 13:26:03 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:26:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rise of populism in Ukraine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007c01d4e569$cccb9d90$6662d8b0$@comcast.net> Thanks for posting this article Ron, A semi-decent article from AP. One thing they definitely attempted to obscure is the following ; " The country’s ultranationalist groups came to the fore in 2014, when they spearheaded massive street protests that led to the ouster of Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych. Russia responded by annexing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and backing separatists in the east, moves that drew Western sanctions. Thousands of Ukrainian nationalists then headed to the east, forming volunteer battalions that served as a vanguard for the Ukrainian forces in the rebel regions. " What they failed to clarify and mention is that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected and that his " ouster " was a VIOLENT COUP. Also, that shortly after the coup government took power, Ukrainian Fascists attacked the Trade Union confederation building in Odessa ( Crimea ), set it on fire, causing over two hundred casualties of injured and dead. There were other attacks as well against selected targets. THAT is what sparked Russia's military occupation and annexation, which was supported by close to 90 % of the Crimean citizens. Go to of all sources as Wikipedia to see what the polling data showed in regards to majority support for annexation into Russia. Polling data going back 15 years + that supported annexation. The western sanctions should have been placed on the undemocratic illegitimate and violent government of Ukraine. The " separatists " in Eastern Ukraine revolted after the violent coup and the new coup government wanting to impose a neo-Nazi Governor and other right wing officials in the Donbass region against the wishes of the population. They want an autonomous government from Kiev where they pick their own political representatives. Lastly, in the current Ukrainian parliament ALL Left parties are banned and illegal. Many Leftist leaders and members ( from Social Democrats and further Left ) were murdered and many are currently in prison, or have fled the country. Of course the western corporate media will NEVER state these facts. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:59 PM To: Peace Discuss Cc: Rebecca Privin Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rise of populism in Ukraine Ukraine's ultra-right increasingly visible as election nears https://apnews.com/e971db860c7a4c12a5240fc08ce6c95e _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 13:45:05 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:45:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2E7E0AF4-256F-4FE2-BA12-7BFF0A3B0F25@gmail.com> In the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) there’s a theme called “angelology” - the contemplation in all three traditions of beings who’re thought to have the mentality of humans, but without the limitations of physicality. See, for example, psalm 8 in the Hebrew bible (Old Testament): "O Lord, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens. Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have founded a bulwark because of your foes, to silence the enemy and the avenger. When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them a little lower than [the divine beings or angels (Hebrew elohim)] and crowned them with glory and honor. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas. O Lord, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name in all the earth!" The later traditions had some trouble with this theme. See for example the Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament (chapter 2): “Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the message declared through angels was valid, and every transgression or disobedience received a just penalty, how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? It was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God added his testimony by signs and wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, distributed according to his will. Now God did not subject the coming world, about which we are speaking, to angels. But someone has testified somewhere, ‘What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals, that you care for them? You have made them for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned them with glory and honor, subjecting all things under their feet.' "Now in subjecting all things to them, God left nothing outside their control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to them, but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, saying, 'I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.' And again, 'I will put my trust in him.' And again, 'Here am I and the children whom God has given me.' "Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.” The role of angels is perhaps even stronger in the Quran. Again, a theme is that they are not subject to physical limitations. It seems that much of this current discussion resembles this traditional one (caricatured in 17th century Protestant apologetics as the ‘angles on the head of a pin’ debate). The assertion is that one can transcend physical limitation and choose one’s sex, regardless of materiality. But people don’t seem to be that plastic, and it's not a solution simply to insist that they are (and perhaps to enforce that insistence by law). Assertion of plastic humanity looks like angelology in contemporary guise, a level of fantasy that approaches idolatry, the greatest sin in the Abrahamic traditions. Modern philosophy begins with the assertion, "The world is all that is the case” (Wittgenstein). I think we do no one a favor by denying it. —CGE > On Mar 28, 2019, at 1:08 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling the question to be asked, one can control the debate. > > The problem with their specific approach -- adopting one aspect of humanity and labeling it as Material Reality, as if there weren't other equally worthy aspects -- is that they use it to devalue the existence of trans people. > > In the discussion there were listed a number of reasons why someone might undertake a gender transition, and all the reasons brought up were, well, unsavory. Young people duped into giving up their birth gender before they knew what it would mean for them, men wanting (lesbian?) women as romantic partners, gay men wanting men as romantic partners, male prisoners wanting to be placed in women's prisons, men wanting to compete in women's sports, men feeling burdened by male privilege and wanting to take on the glow of victimhood by becoming part of an oppressed group, women "cutting off their breasts" to gain male privilege (this last from an audience member). Gender dysphoria was mentioned, but I didn't hear any panelist take it seriously. > > A recurring theme was predatory behavior by trans people - and by trans activists. > > Also that what it means to be a woman, legally and socially, was being redefined - by men. > > One of the panelists offered a definition of "intersectionality" which is the neoliberal perversion of that idea -- where the goal is to prove how privileged or un-privileged you yourself are, and place yourself properly in the hierarchy of oppression. This is *not* the original meaning of the term, and not what we should allow it to be turned into. The article below gives a better understanding of it for this context - I've forgotten who posted this recently but thanks to you if you're reading this: > > https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/ > > I don't want to claim that the panel had no legitimate complaints. And there were some thoughtful things said by some in the audience. But the above might give a flavor of why some people are very angry at things Nina has been saying. > > Nina noted that one distinction she wants kept clear was that between birth sex and gender presentation. In her opinion, laws protecting women should apply only to the former, not at all to the latter. > > Of course if you accept that, you are throwing trans and other alternative gender people under the bus, legally. > > However, one of the audience members struggled for a while and offered a suggestion that I think could help. The law could, she proposed, provide separate protections based on sex, on sexual preference, and on gender presentation. It wouldn't be necessary to legally redefine women while still protecting trans and other alternative genders. > > Stuart > > > > On 3/27/19 6:32 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> That’s hardly a unanimous opinion: e.g., >> . >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> that (biological) sex is [binary]. >>>> >>> It is not. >>> As a biologist, I say biological sex is NOT binary. >>> >>> Let us take this one topic on >>> >>> -karen medina >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 16:28:57 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 11:28:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: <2E7E0AF4-256F-4FE2-BA12-7BFF0A3B0F25@gmail.com> References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> <2E7E0AF4-256F-4FE2-BA12-7BFF0A3B0F25@gmail.com> Message-ID: Frankly, it mystifies me as to how trans-gender advocates claim that sex and/or gender are not binary (on the one hand), and then proceed to continue to invoke the binaries of man/woman, male/female, masculine/feminine in legal, social, political, and medical claims that simply accept and re-assert/re-define those binaries. Why bother to go to the trouble of becoming a "woman" or "man" when, as a binary, these categories are claimed not to exist except as identities to be freely applied to oneself, to be changed, to be rejected, or to be reverted to if the choice doesn't happen to be satisfactory in one way or another. It seems to me that interrogating masculine/feminine gender characteristics within the context of patriarchy and sexism could be done much more effectively by acknowledging their biological foundations but rejecting biological determinism in favor of cultural evolution. It seems that trans advocates undermine this project when they argue that the solution for those who feel like the other sex to simply to become the other sex in what turns out to be rather gender stereotypical behavioral ways ("effeminate", "tough"), not to mention biological (hormonal, surgical) ways. On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:45 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > In the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) there’s a theme > called “angelology” - the contemplation in all three traditions of beings > who’re thought to have the mentality of humans, but without the limitations > of physicality. See, for example, psalm 8 in the Hebrew bible (Old > Testament): > > "O Lord, our Sovereign, > how majestic is your name in all the earth! > You have set your glory above the heavens. > Out of the mouths of babes and infants > you have founded a bulwark because of your foes, > to silence the enemy and the avenger. > When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, > the moon and the stars that you have established; > what are human beings that you are mindful of them, > mortals that you care for them? > Yet you have made them a little lower than [the divine beings or angels > (Hebrew elohim)] > and crowned them with glory and honor. > You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; > you have put all things under their feet, > all sheep and oxen, > and also the beasts of the field, > the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, > whatever passes along the paths of the seas. > O Lord, our Sovereign, > how majestic is your name in all the earth!" > > The later traditions had some trouble with this theme. See for example the > Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament (chapter 2): > > “Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we > do not drift away from it. For if the message declared through angels was > valid, and every transgression or disobedience received a just penalty, how > can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? It was declared at first > through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while > God added his testimony by signs and wonders and various miracles, and by > gifts of the Holy Spirit, distributed according to his will. Now God did > not subject the coming world, about which we are speaking, to angels. But > someone has testified somewhere, > > ‘What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals, > that you care for them? You have made them for a little while lower than > the angels; you have crowned them with glory and honor, subjecting all > things under their feet.' > > "Now in subjecting all things to them, God left nothing outside their > control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to them, but > we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now > crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by > the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. It was fitting that > God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children > to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through > sufferings. For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all > have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers > and sisters, saying, > > 'I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, in the > midst of the congregation I will praise you.' And again, 'I will put my > trust in him.' And again, 'Here am I and the children whom God has given > me.' > > "Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise > shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who > has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their > lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. For it is clear that he > did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he > had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he > might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make > a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was > tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.” > > The role of angels is perhaps even stronger in the Quran. Again, a theme > is that they are not subject to physical limitations. > > It seems that much of this current discussion resembles this traditional > one (caricatured in 17th century Protestant apologetics as the ‘angles on > the head of a pin’ debate). > > The assertion is that one can transcend physical limitation and choose > one’s sex, regardless of materiality. > > But people don’t seem to be that plastic, and it's not a solution simply > to insist that they are (and perhaps to enforce that insistence by law). > > Assertion of plastic humanity looks like angelology in contemporary guise, > a level of fantasy that approaches idolatry, the greatest sin in the > Abrahamic traditions. > > Modern philosophy begins with the assertion, "The world is all that is the > case” (Wittgenstein). I think we do no one a favor by denying it. > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 28, 2019, at 1:08 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling the > question to be asked, one can control the debate. > > > > The problem with their specific approach -- adopting one aspect of > humanity and labeling it as Material Reality, as if there weren't other > equally worthy aspects -- is that they use it to devalue the existence of > trans people. > > > > In the discussion there were listed a number of reasons why someone > might undertake a gender transition, and all the reasons brought up were, > well, unsavory. Young people duped into giving up their birth gender > before they knew what it would mean for them, men wanting (lesbian?) women > as romantic partners, gay men wanting men as romantic partners, male > prisoners wanting to be placed in women's prisons, men wanting to compete > in women's sports, men feeling burdened by male privilege and wanting to > take on the glow of victimhood by becoming part of an oppressed group, > women "cutting off their breasts" to gain male privilege (this last from an > audience member). Gender dysphoria was mentioned, but I didn't hear any > panelist take it seriously. > > > > A recurring theme was predatory behavior by trans people - and by trans > activists. > > > > Also that what it means to be a woman, legally and socially, was being > redefined - by men. > > > > One of the panelists offered a definition of "intersectionality" which > is the neoliberal perversion of that idea -- where the goal is to prove how > privileged or un-privileged you yourself are, and place yourself properly > in the hierarchy of oppression. This is *not* the original meaning of the > term, and not what we should allow it to be turned into. The article > below gives a better understanding of it for this context - I've > forgotten who posted this recently but thanks to you if you're reading this: > > > > > https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/ > > > > I don't want to claim that the panel had no legitimate complaints. And > there were some thoughtful things said by some in the audience. But the > above might give a flavor of why some people are very angry at things Nina > has been saying. > > > > Nina noted that one distinction she wants kept clear was that between > birth sex and gender presentation. In her opinion, laws protecting women > should apply only to the former, not at all to the latter. > > > > Of course if you accept that, you are throwing trans and other > alternative gender people under the bus, legally. > > > > However, one of the audience members struggled for a while and offered a > suggestion that I think could help. The law could, she proposed, provide > separate protections based on sex, on sexual preference, and on gender > presentation. It wouldn't be necessary to legally redefine women while > still protecting trans and other alternative genders. > > > > Stuart > > > > > > > > On 3/27/19 6:32 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > >> That’s hardly a unanimous opinion: e.g., < > https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/31/science_shows_sex_is_binary_not_a_spectrum_138506.html > > > >> . > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> that (biological) sex is [binary]. > >>>> > >>> It is not. > >>> As a biologist, I say biological sex is NOT binary. > >>> > >>> Let us take this one topic on > >>> > >>> -karen medina > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Mar 28 18:17:03 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:17:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Stuart's aggressive hostility towards Nina from his first sentence is breathtaking to me. This is a side of Stuart Levy I have never seen before. Did she drop you on your head, Stuart? Is that why you're behaving in this strange un-Stuart-like way? "Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling the question to be asked, one can control the debate." This sentence is loco, Stuart. Nina and her colleagues organized a panel. Of course their views are going to be privileged in a panel that they organized. You think they have an obligation to give equal time in their panel to people who hate them? Is that how you organize an anti-war panel? Do you give equal time to people with pro-war views? Or, do you figure that people who want to air pro-war views can, under the First Amendment which protects us all, air those pro-war views somewhere else? Someone told me recently that "young people don't care about the First Amendment anymore." I found that statement astonishing. When I was coming up, respect for the First Amendment was foundational to left culture, strongly shaped by the legacy of the McCarthy period. What could we do to restore the idea that respect for the First Amendment is foundational to left culture? On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 1:08 AM Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling the > question to be asked, one can control the debate. > > The problem with their specific approach -- adopting one aspect of > humanity and labeling it as Material Reality, as if there weren't other > equally worthy aspects -- is that they use it to devalue the existence of > trans people. > > In the discussion there were listed a number of reasons why someone might > undertake a gender transition, and all the reasons brought up were, well, > unsavory. Young people duped into giving up their birth gender before they > knew what it would mean for them, men wanting (lesbian?) women as romantic > partners, gay men wanting men as romantic partners, male prisoners wanting > to be placed in women's prisons, men wanting to compete in women's sports, > men feeling burdened by male privilege and wanting to take on the glow of > victimhood by becoming part of an oppressed group, women "cutting off their > breasts" to gain male privilege (this last from an audience member). > Gender dysphoria was mentioned, but I didn't hear any panelist take it > seriously. > > A recurring theme was predatory behavior by trans people - and by trans > activists. > > Also that what it means to be a woman, legally and socially, was being > redefined - by men. > > One of the panelists offered a definition of "intersectionality" which is > the neoliberal perversion of that idea -- where the goal is to prove how > privileged or un-privileged you yourself are, and place yourself properly > in the hierarchy of oppression. This is *not* the original meaning of the > term, and not what we should allow it to be turned into. The article > below gives a better understanding of it for this context - I've forgotten > who posted this recently but thanks to you if you're reading this: > > > https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/ > > I don't want to claim that the panel had no legitimate complaints. And > there were some thoughtful things said by some in the audience. But the > above might give a flavor of why some people are very angry at things Nina > has been saying. > > Nina noted that one distinction she wants kept clear was that between > birth sex and gender presentation. In her opinion, laws protecting women > should apply only to the former, not at all to the latter. > > Of course if you accept that, you are throwing trans and other alternative > gender people under the bus, legally. > > However, one of the audience members struggled for a while and offered a > suggestion that I think could help. The law could, she proposed, provide > separate protections based on sex, on sexual preference, and on gender > presentation. It wouldn't be necessary to legally redefine women while > still protecting trans and other alternative genders. > > > Stuart > > > > On 3/27/19 6:32 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > That’s hardly a unanimous opinion: e.g., . > > > > > On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > that (biological) sex is [binary]. > > It is not. > As a biologist, I say biological sex is NOT binary. > > Let us take this one topic on > > -karen medina > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttps://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttps://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 01:41:03 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:41:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> <2E7E0AF4-256F-4FE2-BA12-7BFF0A3B0F25@gmail.com> Message-ID: Eminent sense. > On Mar 28, 2019, at 11:28 AM, David Green wrote: > > Frankly, it mystifies me as to how trans-gender advocates claim that sex and/or gender are not binary (on the one hand), and then proceed to continue to invoke the binaries of man/woman, male/female, masculine/feminine in legal, social, political, and medical claims that simply accept and re-assert/re-define those binaries. Why bother to go to the trouble of becoming a "woman" or "man" when, as a binary, these categories are claimed not to exist except as identities to be freely applied to oneself, to be changed, to be rejected, or to be reverted to if the choice doesn't happen to be satisfactory in one way or another. It seems to me that interrogating masculine/feminine gender characteristics within the context of patriarchy and sexism could be done much more effectively by acknowledging their biological foundations but rejecting biological determinism in favor of cultural evolution. It seems that trans advocates undermine this project when they argue that the solution for those who feel like the other sex to simply to become the other sex in what turns out to be rather gender stereotypical behavioral ways ("effeminate", "tough"), not to mention biological (hormonal, surgical) ways. From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Mar 29 08:05:36 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 03:05:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> <2E7E0AF4-256F-4FE2-BA12-7BFF0A3B0F25@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with David and Carl. There's something cultish about the insistence that all progressive people have to toe the Party Line of a particular group of "trans-gender advocates" on these questions. I think that people who support free speech should try to put a stop to the depredations of this cult in Champaign-Urbana. On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:41 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Eminent sense. > > > > On Mar 28, 2019, at 11:28 AM, David Green > wrote: > > > > Frankly, it mystifies me as to how trans-gender advocates claim that sex > and/or gender are not binary (on the one hand), and then proceed to > continue to invoke the binaries of man/woman, male/female, > masculine/feminine in legal, social, political, and medical claims that > simply accept and re-assert/re-define those binaries. Why bother to go to > the trouble of becoming a "woman" or "man" when, as a binary, these > categories are claimed not to exist except as identities to be freely > applied to oneself, to be changed, to be rejected, or to be reverted to if > the choice doesn't happen to be satisfactory in one way or another. It > seems to me that interrogating masculine/feminine gender characteristics > within the context of patriarchy and sexism could be done much more > effectively by acknowledging their biological foundations but rejecting > biological determinism in favor of cultural evolution. It seems that trans > advocates undermine this project when they argue that the solution for > those who feel like the other sex to simply to become the other sex in what > turns out to be rather gender stereotypical behavioral ways ("effeminate", > "tough"), not to mention biological (hormonal, surgical) ways. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 14:41:58 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 09:41:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> <2E7E0AF4-256F-4FE2-BA12-7BFF0A3B0F25@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would only add, referring to an issue that indeed relates to issues of war and peace, that Chelsea Manning is of course an example of a transgender woman that I support, and her case raises difficult issues regarding women's spaces in prisons, and rightful medical treatment in relation to sex transition. Nevertheless, this and other issues should be discussed in a non-repressive context. On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:05 AM Robert Naiman wrote: > > I agree with David and Carl. There's something cultish about the > insistence that all progressive people have to toe the Party Line of a > particular group of "trans-gender advocates" on these questions. > > I think that people who support free speech should try to put a stop to > the depredations of this cult in Champaign-Urbana. > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:41 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Eminent sense. >> >> >> > On Mar 28, 2019, at 11:28 AM, David Green >> wrote: >> > >> > Frankly, it mystifies me as to how trans-gender advocates claim that >> sex and/or gender are not binary (on the one hand), and then proceed to >> continue to invoke the binaries of man/woman, male/female, >> masculine/feminine in legal, social, political, and medical claims that >> simply accept and re-assert/re-define those binaries. Why bother to go to >> the trouble of becoming a "woman" or "man" when, as a binary, these >> categories are claimed not to exist except as identities to be freely >> applied to oneself, to be changed, to be rejected, or to be reverted to if >> the choice doesn't happen to be satisfactory in one way or another. It >> seems to me that interrogating masculine/feminine gender characteristics >> within the context of patriarchy and sexism could be done much more >> effectively by acknowledging their biological foundations but rejecting >> biological determinism in favor of cultural evolution. It seems that trans >> advocates undermine this project when they argue that the solution for >> those who feel like the other sex to simply to become the other sex in what >> turns out to be rather gender stereotypical behavioral ways ("effeminate", >> "tough"), not to mention biological (hormonal, surgical) ways. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 15:25:55 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:25:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> <2E7E0AF4-256F-4FE2-BA12-7BFF0A3B0F25@gmail.com> Message-ID: Institutionally, the Paley matter should be bracketed with the shameful Salaita affair - both cases of 'de-platforming' by the university in violation of its expressed standards - "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Hardly unusual in contemporary universities. > On Mar 29, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > I agree with David and Carl. There's something cultish about the insistence that all progressive people have to toe the Party Line of a particular group of "trans-gender advocates" on these questions. > > I think that people who support free speech should try to put a stop to the depredations of this cult in Champaign-Urbana. > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:41 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > Eminent sense. > > > > On Mar 28, 2019, at 11:28 AM, David Green wrote: > > > > Frankly, it mystifies me as to how trans-gender advocates claim that sex and/or gender are not binary (on the one hand), and then proceed to continue to invoke the binaries of man/woman, male/female, masculine/feminine in legal, social, political, and medical claims that simply accept and re-assert/re-define those binaries. Why bother to go to the trouble of becoming a "woman" or "man" when, as a binary, these categories are claimed not to exist except as identities to be freely applied to oneself, to be changed, to be rejected, or to be reverted to if the choice doesn't happen to be satisfactory in one way or another. It seems to me that interrogating masculine/feminine gender characteristics within the context of patriarchy and sexism could be done much more effectively by acknowledging their biological foundations but rejecting biological determinism in favor of cultural evolution. It seems that trans advocates undermine this project when they argue that the solution for those who feel like the other sex to simply to become the other sex in what turns out to be rather gender stereotypical behavioral ways ("effeminate", "tough"), not to mention biological (hormonal, surgical) ways. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Mar 29 16:01:34 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:01:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bernie Sanders: "The voices of the Palestinians are rarely heard..." Message-ID: "The voices of the Palestinians are rarely heard. This is what life is like for those who are living in Gaza under a 10 year blockade..." https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1004505722648870912 === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 16:45:38 2019 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:45:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0E4BD-DB66-4200-B5B7-E549299CCB0E@gmail.com> <2E7E0AF4-256F-4FE2-BA12-7BFF0A3B0F25@gmail.com> Message-ID: As to the non-repressive context, I agree.    As I've said elsewhere, I don't support banning Nina Paley or her work.   I would like to see Seder Masochism shown, including in C-U, and I want to see it.    I also think she has legitimate complaints about tactics used by some trans activists.   And I've seen those tactics used against my own sister, as a writer, where I don't think even criticism was remotely deserved, let alone the attempts to get her academic dept. to fire her or her publisher to un-publish her latest book.   (Fortunately both stood firm behind her.) I *do* think that Nina is using her powerful position to say some reactionary things, aimed at dehumanizing people.   Those arguments should be powerfully criticized, and I'm here to criticize them. What I'm hearing from Carl, David, Robert, seems to conflate the repressive tactics with the substance of the argument over gender presentation. I think it's important to separate those. During the Vietnam War, there were anti-war activists who felt strongly enough about stopping the war that they did things like setting bombs on campuses. Probably most of us on this list wouldn't approve of that tactic.  I do not.   But I'm sure it was convenient for the pro-war authorities.   They could and did say, Look at that anti-war movement.   They are irresponsible, and dangerous, and pro-communist, and the men are long-haired, and they all need a bath.     Let me tell you how terrible communism is and how righteous our war effort is. What I'm saying is, the anti-Vietnam-war activists had important points to make, and they expressed them in lots of ways other than throwing bombs.   Don't only listen to the pro-war advocates in deciding what you think - about variations on the theme of gender, in this case. I'll respond separately on questions of gender. On 3/29/19 9:41 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > I would only add, referring to an issue that indeed relates to issues > of war and peace, that Chelsea Manning is of course an example of a > transgender woman that I support, and her case raises difficult issues > regarding women's spaces in prisons, and rightful medical treatment in > relation to sex transition. Nevertheless, this and other issues should > be discussed in a non-repressive context. > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:05 AM Robert Naiman > > > wrote: > > > I agree with David and Carl. There's something cultish about the > insistence that all progressive people have to toe the Party Line > of a particular group of "trans-gender advocates" on these questions.  > > I think that people who support free speech should try to put a > stop to the depredations of this cult in Champaign-Urbana.  > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:41 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > Eminent sense. > > > > On Mar 28, 2019, at 11:28 AM, David Green > > wrote: > > > > Frankly, it mystifies me as to how trans-gender advocates > claim that sex and/or gender are not binary (on the one hand), > and then proceed to continue to invoke the binaries of > man/woman, male/female, masculine/feminine in legal, social, > political, and medical claims that simply accept and > re-assert/re-define those binaries. Why bother to go to the > trouble of becoming a "woman" or "man" when, as a binary, > these categories are claimed not to exist except as identities > to be freely applied to oneself, to be changed, to be > rejected, or to be reverted to if the choice doesn't happen to > be satisfactory in one way or another. It seems to me that > interrogating masculine/feminine gender characteristics within > the context of patriarchy and sexism could be done much more > effectively by acknowledging their biological foundations but > rejecting biological determinism in favor of cultural > evolution. It seems that trans advocates undermine this > project when they argue that the solution for those who feel > like the other sex to simply to become the other sex in what > turns out to be rather gender stereotypical behavioral ways > ("effeminate", "tough"), not to mention biological (hormonal, > surgical) ways. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri Mar 29 16:58:04 2019 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (Anne Bjornson) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:58:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 19:51:16 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:51:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: CIA air wars [signature needed] References: <1db6-cfa-5c9e761e@list.winwithoutwar.org> Message-ID: <3AF753F4-B168-4791-8247-F7ACED1243D9@gmail.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Tara Tabassi" > Subject: CIA air wars [signature needed] > Date: March 29, 2019 at 2:46:51 PM CDT > To: "C. G. ESTABROOK" > Reply-To: info at winwithoutwar.org > > > C. G.— > > Red Alert: This month, Trump signed an Executive Order that could allow the CIA to become a secret killing squad, with no way to know how many people they kill. [1] > > Drone strikes have tripled under Trump. He already snuck the CIA dangerous authority to conduct shadow drone wars around the world that are killing civilians, including Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. And now there is literally nothing in U.S. law requiring reporting on civilian casualties by the CIA — making those wars completely invisible. > > But Congress can stop the CIA from waging secret air wars around the world — by banning the CIA from conducting drone strikes entirely. So it’s time for us to make sure Congress hears us loud and clear: > > Tell Representative Rodney Davis and Senators Richard J. Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to ban the secret CIA drone strikes NOW! > > Since Trump took office, finding out who the U.S. is killing through lethal air wars has become nearly impossible. > > The Pentagon claims it has killed no civilians in its Somalia drone war over the last 2 years. But we know drone strikes have killed civilians in Somalia — and the U.S. is the only government conducting airstrikes in the country [2]. In other words: the CIA is almost certainly launching secret drone strikes killing Somali civilians, and then flat-out lying about it! > > Halimo Mohamed Abdi was hit by a drone strike in Bariire, outside of the Somali capital of Mogadishu. Before losing consciousness, she saw three little boys, ages 9, 10, and 16, die in explosions. The strike broke her hips, left shrapnel in her thigh and terrible burns on her chest. After being hospitalized for 3 months, she returned to her home in ruins and 25 of her goats dead. She was forced to move to a camp housing tens of thousands of Somalis fleeing U.S. airstrikes, and fighting between Al Shabab and the Somali government. [3] > > We cannot let our government conduct unchecked, secret wars that kill and displace people around the world. That’s why we have to get Congress to ban CIA air wars NOW. > > Act Now: Tell Representative Rodney Davis and Senators Richard J. Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to ban CIA drone strikes. > Thank you for working for peace, > > Tara, Kate, Mariam, and the Win Without War team > > > --- > > [1] The Atlantic, "Trump Just Gave Himself More Power to Kill in Secret " > > [2] Foreign Policy, "U.S. Bombardments Are Driving Somalis From Their Homes " > > [3] The Nation, "Inside the Secretive US Air Campaign In Somalia " > > > > > > > > > Donate > > Win Without War is a project of the Center for International Policy. > 1 Thomas Circle NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005 > (202) 656-4999 | info at winwithoutwar.org > > This email was sent to carl at newsfromneptune.com . Email is the most important way for us to reach you about opportunities to act. If you'd like to receive fewer mailings, click here . If you need to remove yourself from our email list, click here to unsubscribe . > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Mar 29 22:36:43 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 17:36:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #415 notes Message-ID: <4cd8f684-09d4-ef0c-3652-0b0ddc941cfb@forestfield.org> News from Neptune #415 A "Boys of Summer" edition Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HON84MPaoVc Links to items referenced on the show. Roger Kahn's "Boys of Summer" ISBN-10: 0060883960 ISBN-13: 978-0060883966 George Will on "Democratic candidates are channeling late-night infomercials" https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/10/george-f-will-democratic/ Michael Roberts on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in a 3-part series on his blog: Modern monetary theory – part 1: Chartalism and Marx Part 1: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/modern-monetary-theory-part-1-chartalism-and-marx/ MMT 2 – the tricks of circulation Part 2: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/mmt-3-a-backstop-to-capitalism/ MMT 3 – a backstop to capitalism https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/mmt-3-a-backstop-to-capitalism/ Rob Urie on "Re: The Green New Deal: First, Shoot the Economists" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/re-the-green-new-deal-first-shoot-the-economists/ Doug Henwood on MMT https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/modern-monetary-theory-isnt-helping Randy Wray on "Response to Doug Henwood’s Trolling on MMT in Jacobin" https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/02/randy-wray-response-doug-henwoods-trolling-mmt-jacobin.html Originally published in http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2019/02/response-to-doug-henwoods-trolling-in-jacobin.html Jim Dey on "Polls say progressive tax is popular — or is it?" http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/columns/2019-03-29/jim-dey-polls-say-progressive-tax-popular-%E2%80%94-or-it.html "Capital in the Twenty-first Century" by Thomas Piketty Complete book: https://dowbor.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14Thomas-Piketty.pdf Tobin Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax CodePink on "War and Peace and the 2020 Presidential Candidates" https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/27/war-and-peace-and-2020-presidential-candidates Sen. Sanders on NBC's "Meet the Press" https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 UPI on "Rafi Eitan, spy who captured Nazi Adolf Eichmann, dies" https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/03/24/Rafi-Eitan-spy-who-captured-Nazi-Adolf-Eichmann-dies/5831553484489/ New York Times on "Rafi Eitan, 92, Israeli Spymaster Who Caught Eichmann, Is Dead" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/obituaries/rafi-eitan-dead.html Associated Press on "New Zealand bans manifesto of accused Christchurch killer, igniting debate about censorship and free speech" https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3003087/new-zealand-bans-manifesto-accused-christchurch-killer Jonathan Cook on "Trump’s Green Light to Israel: First the Golan, Then the West Bank?" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/28/trumps-green-light-to-israel-first-the-golan-then-the-west-bank/ Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT1v4fbljx4 -- Pres. Trump deems Golan Heights to be part of Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsoip2fsb1E -- RT: Russia, Turkey blast move to recognize Golan Heights as Israeli https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3segzWTLsk -- Ruptly: UN Security Council meeting on Syria & Golan Heights recognition Map of Golan Heights https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Golan_Heights_Map.PNG Russia Defies US Threats Over Venezuela Transcript: https://therealnews.com/stories/russia-defies-us-threats-over-venezuela Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MX_LS_NqQA J.B. Nicholson on "Is Tulsi Gabbard really anti-war? No, she’s pro-drone and for “surgical strikes”." https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ January 2018 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard interview with Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept Transcript: https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ Audio: https://traffic.megaphone.fm/PPY1407171456.mp3 Adeel Hassan, Karen Zraick and Alan Blinder on "Morris Dees, a Co-Founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Is Ousted" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/morris-dees-southern-poverty-law-center-fired.html Alexander Cockburn on "King of the Hate Business" https://www.thenation.com/article/king-hate-business/ Paul Craig Roberts on "Now We Will Find Out If Trump Is Really The President Or Merely A Figurehead" https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/03/25/now-we-will-find-out-if-trump-is-really-the-president-or-merely-a-figurehead/ -J From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Mar 30 03:13:03 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 03:13:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] What is this? In-Reply-To: <20190330030703.C7EF38CC@ivan.mayfirst.org> References: <20190330030703.C7EF38CC@ivan.mayfirst.org> Message-ID: Putin statement. February '19 SR Szoke, Ron Fri 3/29/2019 10:06 PM Peace Discuss  Putin: Russia will target US if missiles are placed in Europe THE HILL BY BRETT SAMUELS - 02/20/19 07:17 AM EST Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday suggested that there is a "deep state" in the U.S. government working against President Trump, according to The New York Times. Putin's remark came during his state-of-the-nation speech Wednesday, during which he said Moscow would target the U.S. if it deploys nuclear missiles in Europe. Putin reportedly said Wednesday that there are too many people within the U.S. "ruling class" who are "too captivated by ideas of their exceptionalism and their superiority over the entire rest of the world.” “But do they know how to count? Surely they do," Putin added, according to the Times. "Let them first calculate the range and speed of our advanced weapons systems, and then make decisions on the threats against our country.” Putin then claimed there is a "deep state" working against the president, the Times reported. His comment falls in line with some supporters of Trump who have claimed that there is a "deep state" conspiracy within the government aimed at undermining Trump and his administration. ________________________________________ From: Mail Delivery System Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 10:07 PM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: Undeliverable: Putin statement. February '19 This is the mail system at host ivan.mayfirst.org. I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system (expanded from ): host spam[172.17.0.7] refused to talk to me: 500 5.5.2 Error: command FROM not recognized -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Szoke, Ron" Subject: Putin statement. February '19 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 03:03:51 +0000 Size: 6434 URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Mar 30 14:55:38 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 09:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Interrogating_Allan_Axelrod=E2=80=99s_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcUmVpZ24gb2YgVGVycm9y4oCd?= Message-ID: Let me make sure that I have this straight, as Peter Falk used to say. According to Nina’s “Open Letter to the University of Illinois,” [ http://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/02/28/open-letter-to-the-university-of-illinois/] this is the alleged “crime of hate speech” for which she is being persecuted by Allan Axelrod and his co-conspirators: *My crime was, months earlier, sharing on Facebook the following lyric: “If a person has a penis he’s a man.” At various times I have also shared such contentious views as, “women don’t have penises,” “sex is not gender,” “woman means adult human female,” and “everyone is free to identify however they wish, but not to force me to identify them the same way.” Nonetheless, “If a person has a penis he’s a man” is continually quoted as my greatest hit of so-called ‘hate speech.’ It is also a fact.* According to Allan Axelrod and his co-conspirators, this alleged crime of hate speech was *so grave *that right-thinking people are morally required to support and participate in the blacklisting of Nina’s movie in Champaign-Urbana, *even though the movie has nothing to do with the question of whether “a person with a penis is a man.”* Here is the webpage for Nina’s new movie: SEDER-MASOCHISM A new animated feature from the creator of Sita Sings the Blues http://sedermasochism.com If you go to the web site for the movie and use your browser to search for the word “penis,” you can’t find it. You can’t find the word “penis” on the web site for the movie, because it’s not there. *There is no “penis” on the web page for the movie.* Yet, according to Allan Axelrod and his co-conspirators, Nina’s alleged crime of hate speech was *so grave *that right-thinking people are morally required to support and participate in the blacklisting of Nina’s movie in Champaign-Urbana, *even though the movie has nothing to do with the question of whether “a person with a penis is a man.”* Is this “the new normal” for Allan Axelrod and his co-conspirators? Which thought criminal will they go after next? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Sat Mar 30 15:14:25 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 15:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: What is this? References: <1392561883.12400545.1553958865549.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1392561883.12400545.1553958865549@mail.yahoo.com> Yes, WHAT IS this--interpretation of Putin's remarks by "NYT"???  [emphasis below added by MO'B]:  Putin's remarks about the D.S. are well taken, but where (in the translation?) is he quoted by NYT as "working against the president"?  Is NYT putting words into Putin's mouth to insinuate "collusion"--is it in the full transcript, or just a post facto interpretation by the NYT?  Gives us the full story, Ron. Midge -----Original Message----- From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss To: Peace Discuss Sent: Fri, Mar 29, 2019 10:13 pm Subject: [Peace-discuss] What is this? Putin statement. February '19 SR Szoke, Ron Fri 3/29/2019 10:06 PM Peace Discuss  Putin: Russia will target US if missiles are placed in Europe THE HILL BY BRETT SAMUELS - 02/20/19 07:17 AM EST   Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday suggested that there is a "deep state" in the U.S. government working against President Trump, according to The New York Times.                   Putin's remark came during his state-of-the-nation speech Wednesday, during which he said Moscow would target the U.S. if it deploys nuclear missiles in Europe. Putin reportedly said Wednesday that there are too many people within the U.S. "ruling class" who are "too captivated by ideas of their exceptionalism and their superiority over the entire rest of the world.”         “But do they know how to count? Surely they do," Putin added, according to the Times. "Let them first calculate the range and speed of our advanced weapons systems, and then make decisions on the threats against our country.”         Putin then claimed there is a "deep state" working against the president, the Times reported.         His comment falls in line with some supporters of Trump who have claimed that there is a "deep state" conspiracy within the government aimed at undermining Trump and his administration. ________________________________________ From: Mail Delivery System Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 10:07 PM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: Undeliverable: Putin statement. February '19 This is the mail system at host ivan.mayfirst.org. I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.                   The mail system (expanded from     ): host spam[172.17.0.7] refused to talk to me:     500 5.5.2 Error: command FROM not recognized Putin: Russia will target US if missiles are placed in Europe THE HILL BY BRETT SAMUELS - 02/20/19 07:17 AM EST   Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday suggested that there is a "deep state" in the U.S. government working against President Trump, according to The New York Times.     Putin's remark came during his state-of-the-nation speech Wednesday, during which he said Moscow would target the U.S. if it deploys nuclear missiles in Europe. Putin reportedly said Wednesday that there are too many people within the U.S. "ruling class" who are "too captivated by ideas of their exceptionalism and their superiority over the entire rest of the world.”     “But do they know how to count? Surely they do," Putin added, according to the Times. "Let them first calculate the range and speed of our advanced weapons systems, and then make decisions on the threats against our country.”     Putin then claimed there is a "deep state" working against the president, the Times reported.     His comment falls in line with some supporters of Trump who have claimed that there is a "deep state" conspiracy within the government aimed at undermining Trump and his administration. _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Szoke, Ron" Subject: Putin statement. February '19 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 03:03:51 +0000 Size: 6434 URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 30 16:30:18 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 11:30:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for March 29 Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HON84MPaoVc News from Neptune #415 A "Boys of Summer” edition [Links and notes by J.B. Nicholson] Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HON84MPaoVc Links to items referenced on the show. Roger Kahn's "Boys of Summer" ISBN-10: 0060883960 ISBN-13: 978-0060883966 George Will on "Democratic candidates are channeling late-night infomercials" https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/10/george-f-will-democratic/ Michael Roberts on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in a 3-part series on his blog: Modern monetary theory – part 1: Chartalism and Marx Part 1: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/modern-monetary-theory-part-1-chartalism-and-marx/ MMT 2 – the tricks of circulation Part 2: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/mmt-3-a-backstop-to-capitalism/ MMT 3 – a backstop to capitalism https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/mmt-3-a-backstop-to-capitalism/ Rob Urie on "Re: The Green New Deal: First, Shoot the Economists" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/re-the-green-new-deal-first-shoot-the-economists/ Doug Henwood on MMT https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/modern-monetary-theory-isnt-helping Randy Wray on "Response to Doug Henwood’s Trolling on MMT in Jacobin" https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/02/randy-wray-response-doug-henwoods-trolling-mmt-jacobin.html Originally published in http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2019/02/response-to-doug-henwoods-trolling-in-jacobin.html Jim Dey on "Polls say progressive tax is popular — or is it?" http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/columns/2019-03-29/jim-dey-polls-say-progressive-tax-popular-%E2%80%94-or-it.html "Capital in the Twenty-first Century" by Thomas Piketty Complete book: https://dowbor.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14Thomas-Piketty.pdf Tobin Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax CodePink on "War and Peace and the 2020 Presidential Candidates" https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/27/war-and-peace-and-2020-presidential-candidates Sen. Sanders on NBC's "Meet the Press" https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 UPI on "Rafi Eitan, spy who captured Nazi Adolf Eichmann, dies" https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/03/24/Rafi-Eitan-spy-who-captured-Nazi-Adolf-Eichmann-dies/5831553484489/ New York Times on "Rafi Eitan, 92, Israeli Spymaster Who Caught Eichmann, Is Dead" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/obituaries/rafi-eitan-dead.html Associated Press on "New Zealand bans manifesto of accused Christchurch killer, igniting debate about censorship and free speech" https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3003087/new-zealand-bans-manifesto-accused-christchurch-killer Jonathan Cook on "Trump’s Green Light to Israel: First the Golan, Then the West Bank?" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/28/trumps-green-light-to-israel-first-the-golan-then-the-west-bank/ Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT1v4fbljx4 -- Pres. Trump deems Golan Heights to be part of Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsoip2fsb1E -- RT: Russia, Turkey blast move to recognize Golan Heights as Israeli https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3segzWTLsk -- Ruptly: UN Security Council meeting on Syria & Golan Heights recognition Map of Golan Heights https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Golan_Heights_Map.PNG Russia Defies US Threats Over Venezuela Transcript: https://therealnews.com/stories/russia-defies-us-threats-over-venezuela Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MX_LS_NqQA J.B. Nicholson on "Is Tulsi Gabbard really anti-war? No, she’s pro-drone and for “surgical strikes”." https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ January 2018 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard interview with Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept Transcript: https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ Audio: https://traffic.megaphone.fm/PPY1407171456.mp3 Adeel Hassan, Karen Zraick and Alan Blinder on "Morris Dees, a Co-Founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Is Ousted" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/morris-dees-southern-poverty-law-center-fired.html Alexander Cockburn on "King of the Hate Business" https://www.thenation.com/article/king-hate-business/ Paul Craig Roberts on "Now We Will Find Out If Trump Is Really The President Or Merely A Figurehead" https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/03/25/now-we-will-find-out-if-trump-is-really-the-president-or-merely-a-figurehead/ -J From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Mar 30 16:31:22 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:31:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Are_You_=91Virtue_Signaling=92?= =?windows-1252?q?=3F?= Message-ID: Are You ‘Virtue Signaling’? [Perhaps raging against racism, anti-Semitism, war?] Probably. But that doesn’t mean your outrage is inauthentic. By Jillian Jordan and David Rand Dr. Jordan and Dr. Rand are psychologists. March 30, 2019 >From The New York Times: Are You ‘Virtue Signaling’? Probably. But that doesn’t mean your outrage is inauthentic. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/opinion/sunday/virtue-signaling.html — > Seems to me a little naive about the amount of self-monitoring that constantly goes on because of the extent to which people internalize the Gaze of Others (due to socialization & civilization) & concern for the supposed perceptions & opinions of the Generalized Other. (What would your Reference Group think? Is there honor among thieves? etc.) ~~ Ron From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 30 17:26:19 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 17:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for March 29 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > I found yesterdays NFN, https://youtu.be/HON84MPaoVc, particularly interesting and informative. > > Carl’s new strategy of being positive, in relation to a Democrat, then allowing others to point out the flaws, is quite refreshing. > We need to thank Code Pink for providing the information and data proving what I suspect in relation to Tulsi Gabbard, that of her being a “sheepherder” for the Democrat Party, attempting to sway the anti-war crowd, by “talking about war.” It’s about time someone “talks about it.” However, candidates will talk about whatever they deem necessary to get votes, and funding. The DNC would shut her down if they didn’t like what she is doing. Poor woman, she does retain her cool, when taking so much criticism from those who support war, whatever their political affiliation, but that doesn’t make her Presidential material, nor is it proof she is “anti-war” as Code Pink proves. > Perhaps I misinterpret David, in referring to the “kidnap, of Adolph Eichmann?” are you implying, that is the beginning of the immoral behavior of the Mossad, Shin Bet? > I realize many at the time felt Israel and the US should always take the moral high ground and follow the law. Just as many think “Truth and Reconciliation” to be justice. If they had kidnapped and tortured and/or murdered Eichmann, I would agree. If they had done what the Mossad did in the seventy’s in relation to Munich, by murdering the members of Black September responsible for terrorism perpetrated against athletes in the Olympics, I would agree. They didn’t, they brought a war criminal to trial, he received “due process,” and the relatives and victims had justice, if one can ever achieve justice for crimes against humanity. I would have, preferred prison for life, solitary confinement as we do with political prisoners in the US, like Chelsea Manning, as I don’t support the death penalty. However, allowing a war criminal, Eichmann wasn’t “just a military man following orders,” he was one of the architects of the “final solution,” to live out their life in comfort is not only an injustice, but an example of inhumanity, inequality, and racism. Imagine a future where US war criminals flee the US and take up residence in Israel or KSA, I wouldn’t be concerned if the Iraqi’s or Libyans then kidnapped and took them back to their nation for trial by the victims. It would be more just than these people living in wealth and splendor throughout the rest of their days as if heroes, as is current. > > On Mar 30, 2019, at 09:30, C G Estabrook wrote: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HON84MPaoVc > > News from Neptune #415 > A "Boys of Summer” edition [Links and notes by J.B. Nicholson] > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HON84MPaoVc > > Links to items referenced on the show. > > Roger Kahn's "Boys of Summer" > ISBN-10: 0060883960 > ISBN-13: 978-0060883966 > > > > George Will on "Democratic candidates are channeling late-night infomercials" > https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/10/george-f-will-democratic/ > > > > Michael Roberts on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in a 3-part series on his blog: > > Modern monetary theory – part 1: Chartalism and Marx > Part 1: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/modern-monetary-theory-part-1-chartalism-and-marx/ > > MMT 2 – the tricks of circulation > Part 2: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/mmt-3-a-backstop-to-capitalism/ > > MMT 3 – a backstop to capitalism > https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/mmt-3-a-backstop-to-capitalism/ > > > > Rob Urie on "Re: The Green New Deal: First, Shoot the Economists" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/re-the-green-new-deal-first-shoot-the-economists/ > > > > Doug Henwood on MMT > https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/modern-monetary-theory-isnt-helping > > Randy Wray on "Response to Doug Henwood’s Trolling on MMT in Jacobin" > https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/02/randy-wray-response-doug-henwoods-trolling-mmt-jacobin.html > > Originally published in > http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2019/02/response-to-doug-henwoods-trolling-in-jacobin.html > > > > > Jim Dey on "Polls say progressive tax is popular — or is it?" > http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/columns/2019-03-29/jim-dey-polls-say-progressive-tax-popular-%E2%80%94-or-it.html > > > > "Capital in the Twenty-first Century" by Thomas Piketty > Complete book: https://dowbor.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14Thomas-Piketty.pdf > > > Tobin Tax > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax > > > > > CodePink on "War and Peace and the 2020 Presidential Candidates" > https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/27/war-and-peace-and-2020-presidential-candidates > > > Sen. Sanders on NBC's "Meet the Press" > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 > > > > > > UPI on "Rafi Eitan, spy who captured Nazi Adolf Eichmann, dies" > https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/03/24/Rafi-Eitan-spy-who-captured-Nazi-Adolf-Eichmann-dies/5831553484489/ > > New York Times on "Rafi Eitan, 92, Israeli Spymaster Who Caught Eichmann, Is Dead" > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/obituaries/rafi-eitan-dead.html > > > > > Associated Press on "New Zealand bans manifesto of accused Christchurch killer, igniting debate about censorship and free speech" > https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3003087/new-zealand-bans-manifesto-accused-christchurch-killer > > > > > Jonathan Cook on "Trump’s Green Light to Israel: First the Golan, Then the West Bank?" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/28/trumps-green-light-to-israel-first-the-golan-then-the-west-bank/ > > Related: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT1v4fbljx4 -- Pres. Trump deems Golan Heights to be part of Israel > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsoip2fsb1E -- RT: Russia, Turkey blast move to recognize Golan Heights as Israeli > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3segzWTLsk -- Ruptly: UN Security Council meeting on Syria & Golan Heights recognition > > > Map of Golan Heights > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Golan_Heights_Map.PNG > > > > > Russia Defies US Threats Over Venezuela > Transcript: https://therealnews.com/stories/russia-defies-us-threats-over-venezuela > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MX_LS_NqQA > > > > > J.B. Nicholson on "Is Tulsi Gabbard really anti-war? No, she’s pro-drone and for “surgical strikes”." > https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ > > January 2018 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard interview with Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept > Transcript: https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > Audio: https://traffic.megaphone.fm/PPY1407171456.mp3 > > > > > > Adeel Hassan, Karen Zraick and Alan Blinder on "Morris Dees, a Co-Founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Is Ousted" > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/morris-dees-southern-poverty-law-center-fired.html > > > Alexander Cockburn on "King of the Hate Business" > https://www.thenation.com/article/king-hate-business/ > > > > Paul Craig Roberts on "Now We Will Find Out If Trump Is Really The President Or Merely A Figurehead" > https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/03/25/now-we-will-find-out-if-trump-is-really-the-president-or-merely-a-figurehead/ > > -J > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 30 18:17:55 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:17:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for March 29 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <174B33BC-F1BE-47A5-9E29-FA0C15A7A19E@gmail.com> Thanks for the comments. I appreciate how closely you listen to us. It might be interesting (as David suggested) to read Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem" (1963) in the present context . > On Mar 30, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > >> >> I found yesterdays NFN, https://youtu.be/HON84MPaoVc, particularly interesting and informative. >> >> Carl’s new strategy of being positive, in relation to a Democrat, then allowing others to point out the flaws, is quite refreshing. > >> We need to thank Code Pink for providing the information and data proving what I suspect in relation to Tulsi Gabbard, that of her being a “sheepherder” for the Democrat Party, attempting to sway the anti-war crowd, by “talking about war.” It’s about time someone “talks about it.” However, candidates will talk about whatever they deem necessary to get votes, and funding. The DNC would shut her down if they didn’t like what she is doing. Poor woman, she does retain her cool, when taking so much criticism from those who support war, whatever their political affiliation, but that doesn’t make her Presidential material, nor is it proof she is “anti-war” as Code Pink proves. > >> Perhaps I misinterpret David, in referring to the “kidnap, of Adolph Eichmann?” are you implying, that is the beginning of the immoral behavior of the Mossad, Shin Bet? > >> I realize many at the time felt Israel and the US should always take the moral high ground and follow the law. Just as many think “Truth and Reconciliation” to be justice. If they had kidnapped and tortured and/or murdered Eichmann, I would agree. If they had done what the Mossad did in the seventy’s in relation to Munich, by murdering the members of Black September responsible for terrorism perpetrated against athletes in the Olympics, I would agree. They didn’t, they brought a war criminal to trial, he received “due process,” and the relatives and victims had justice, if one can ever achieve justice for crimes against humanity. I would have, preferred prison for life, solitary confinement as we do with political prisoners in the US, like Chelsea Manning, as I don’t support the death penalty. However, allowing a war criminal, Eichmann wasn’t “just a military man following orders,” he was one of the architects of the “final solution,” to live out their life in comfort is not only an injustice, but an example of inhumanity, inequality, and racism. > > Imagine a future where US war criminals flee the US and take up residence in Israel or KSA, I wouldn’t be concerned if the Iraqi’s or Libyans then kidnapped and took them back to their nation for trial by the victims. It would be more just than these people living in wealth and splendor throughout the rest of their days as if heroes, as is current. > > >> > > > >> On Mar 30, 2019, at 09:30, C G Estabrook wrote: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HON84MPaoVc >> >> News from Neptune #415 >> A "Boys of Summer” edition [Links and notes by J.B. Nicholson] >> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HON84MPaoVc >> >> Links to items referenced on the show. >> >> Roger Kahn's "Boys of Summer" >> ISBN-10: 0060883960 >> ISBN-13: 978-0060883966 >> >> >> >> George Will on "Democratic candidates are channeling late-night infomercials" >> https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/10/george-f-will-democratic/ >> >> >> >> Michael Roberts on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in a 3-part series on his blog: >> >> Modern monetary theory – part 1: Chartalism and Marx >> Part 1: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/modern-monetary-theory-part-1-chartalism-and-marx/ >> >> MMT 2 – the tricks of circulation >> Part 2: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/mmt-3-a-backstop-to-capitalism/ >> >> MMT 3 – a backstop to capitalism >> https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/mmt-3-a-backstop-to-capitalism/ >> >> >> >> Rob Urie on "Re: The Green New Deal: First, Shoot the Economists" >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/re-the-green-new-deal-first-shoot-the-economists/ >> >> >> >> Doug Henwood on MMT >> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/modern-monetary-theory-isnt-helping >> >> Randy Wray on "Response to Doug Henwood’s Trolling on MMT in Jacobin" >> https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/02/randy-wray-response-doug-henwoods-trolling-mmt-jacobin.html >> >> Originally published in >> http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2019/02/response-to-doug-henwoods-trolling-in-jacobin.html >> >> >> >> >> Jim Dey on "Polls say progressive tax is popular — or is it?" >> http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/columns/2019-03-29/jim-dey-polls-say-progressive-tax-popular-%E2%80%94-or-it.html >> >> >> >> "Capital in the Twenty-first Century" by Thomas Piketty >> Complete book: https://dowbor.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14Thomas-Piketty.pdf >> >> >> Tobin Tax >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax >> >> >> >> >> CodePink on "War and Peace and the 2020 Presidential Candidates" >> https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/27/war-and-peace-and-2020-presidential-candidates >> >> >> Sen. Sanders on NBC's "Meet the Press" >> https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844 >> >> >> >> >> >> UPI on "Rafi Eitan, spy who captured Nazi Adolf Eichmann, dies" >> https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/03/24/Rafi-Eitan-spy-who-captured-Nazi-Adolf-Eichmann-dies/5831553484489/ >> >> New York Times on "Rafi Eitan, 92, Israeli Spymaster Who Caught Eichmann, Is Dead" >> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/obituaries/rafi-eitan-dead.html >> >> >> >> >> Associated Press on "New Zealand bans manifesto of accused Christchurch killer, igniting debate about censorship and free speech" >> https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3003087/new-zealand-bans-manifesto-accused-christchurch-killer >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan Cook on "Trump’s Green Light to Israel: First the Golan, Then the West Bank?" >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/28/trumps-green-light-to-israel-first-the-golan-then-the-west-bank/ >> >> Related: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT1v4fbljx4 -- Pres. Trump deems Golan Heights to be part of Israel >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsoip2fsb1E -- RT: Russia, Turkey blast move to recognize Golan Heights as Israeli >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3segzWTLsk -- Ruptly: UN Security Council meeting on Syria & Golan Heights recognition >> >> >> Map of Golan Heights >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Golan_Heights_Map.PNG >> >> >> >> >> Russia Defies US Threats Over Venezuela >> Transcript: https://therealnews.com/stories/russia-defies-us-threats-over-venezuela >> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MX_LS_NqQA >> >> >> >> >> J.B. Nicholson on "Is Tulsi Gabbard really anti-war? No, she’s pro-drone and for “surgical strikes”." >> https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ >> >> January 2018 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard interview with Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept >> Transcript: https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ >> Audio: https://traffic.megaphone.fm/PPY1407171456.mp3 >> >> >> >> >> >> Adeel Hassan, Karen Zraick and Alan Blinder on "Morris Dees, a Co-Founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Is Ousted" >> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/morris-dees-southern-poverty-law-center-fired.html >> >> >> Alexander Cockburn on "King of the Hate Business" >> https://www.thenation.com/article/king-hate-business/ >> >> >> >> Paul Craig Roberts on "Now We Will Find Out If Trump Is Really The President Or Merely A Figurehead" >> https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/03/25/now-we-will-find-out-if-trump-is-really-the-president-or-merely-a-figurehead/ >> >> -J >> >