[Peace-discuss] anti-neoliberal notes

[J.B. Nicholson]

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