[Peace-discuss] Notes

[J.B. Nicholson]

Here are some additional topics for you to consider discussing. Have a good 
show guys.

-J


Democratic Party: Democracy is a "dangerous position" to leave in the hands 
of the electorate.

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/111819-1 -- Nancy Pelosi in a memo to 
Democratic Party colleagues:

> The weak response to these hearings has been, “Let the election decide.”
> That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because
> the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.






Coup news: Sadly there's enough going on in US-led coups to have a 
recurring segment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCY_ReFRT8o -- The Grayzone: Anya Parampil 
debunks media myths about the Bolivian coup (which, by the way, is only 
recognized as the coup it is by alternative media not mainstream corporate 
media)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2cHKyqaRo8 -- The Grayzone report on 
Jeanine Áñez. jbn: Jeanine Áñez:Bolivia::Juan Guaido:Venezuela -- both 
self-declared "presidents", both US stooges, both beneficiaries of US-led 
coup attempts and very likely both are funded by US funding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMscskEEAyw -- The Grayzone: Economic 
motives behind the Bolivian coup: lithium (used in batteries for our 
"green" future) & natural gas, and leaked recordings to back up the claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37XnuBIonT0 -- RT: Evo Morales urges UN to 
stop bloodshed in Bolivia







Syria: OPCW leaks are confirming what we had good reason to believe -- the 
gas canisters in the Syrian so-called 'gas attack' were placed on the 
scene, not dropped. In other words, the alleged 'gas attack' was staged. 
You'll recall that this (now we know: staged attack) prompted a coordinated 
US/French/UK missile attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaq2wOf2Haw -- The Grayzone: Another 
whistleblower inside the OPCW says the 'chemical attack' may have been 
staged (also includes BBC interview).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMSyLg1E49M -- The Grayzone: Whistleblower: 
OPCW suppressed Syria chemical evidence after US pressure.

jbn: Since this involves the OPCW this has a connection to the current UK 
Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) and the Skripal attacks too -- Boris Johnson 
pushed for the OPCW to be able to make statements about the origin of that 
poison when the experts were unwilling to make such a statement. Johnson 
was clearly hoping for a real connection to Russia but the evidence just 
wasn't there to make that connection because information about the 
"novichok" (Russian for 'newcomer') poison allegedly used had been widely 
published years before the Skripals were poisoned. And the allegations 
about the lethality of that poison don't match what happened to the 
Skripals (father Sergey, daughter Yulia, and a policeman all survived). So 
far only one human has died in those poisonings, Dawn Sturgess, and one RT 
report suggested she might have succumbed because she was a recovering 
heroin addict (hence she might have been compromised). The UK government 
killed Skripals pets (it's not clear why) and arranged to buy his house and 
everything in it. It's looking more and more like the OPCW's leadership is 
corrupt enough to hide reports that don't favor the state's narrative but 
the OPCW still has a few scientists working for it that are willing to tell 
the truth (including leaking it).

There's not a lot of mainstream coverage of either the Skripal/Sturgess 
poisoning incidents or the recent OPCW whistleblowers. You'll likely have 
to get your news on this from alternative sources.






Press freedom/Assange/WikiLeaks: Protests supporting Assange continue, 
Craig Murray explains how the Swedish sexual misconduct allegations (never 
charges, as far as I know) were always bogus, and why this case ought to be 
of chief importance to American media but isn't portrayed that way in 
American corporate media.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM6YDIna5ww -- Assange supporters 
(including his father) gather outside London court hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8caSQ5hlTH4 -- Swedish prosecutor announces 
she will "discontinue preliminary investigation on the Julian Assange case".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VfbJBxViac -- Ben Swann interview
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1196777248474517505 -- Twitter post 
referred to in Swann interview:
> Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief: “Let us now focus on the
> threat Mr Assange has been warning about for years: the belligerent
> prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the First
> Amendment.
"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOY2n2-ojrM -- Ögmundur Jónasson interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZX-AyUpf-M -- Craig Murray interview
https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/press-releases/?newsId=3265699 -- 
press release from Swedish prosecutor
https://www.aklagare.se/en/news-and-press/media/the-assange-matter/chronology/ 
-- chronology of Assange case from Swedish prosecutor
https://www.aklagare.se/globalassets/dokument/ovriga-dokument/decision_19nov.pdf 
-- translation of decision to discontinue the preliminary investigation of 
Assange's case from the Swedish prosecutor

RT has been one of the very few news outlets to properly cover the Assange 
case. Other news outlets showing Assange being pulled out of the Ecuadorian 
embassy had to license that footage from RT's RUPTLY outlet because the 
other news organizations decided not to keep their cameras rolling when the 
ejection event occurred (despite widespread notice ahead of time via 
Twitter that Assange was due to be ejected). Democracy Now, which has been 
on the decline in recent years including buying into Russiagate and 
offering no serious analysis of Syria (two topics Aaron Maté cited as 
reasons for his leaving DN), has had no news on the Assange case since 
October 24 and no critical analysis of the relevance of the Swedish 
allegations against Assange.

The RT interview with investigative journalist Ben Swann is easily the 
worst of these interviews because the host doesn't seem to know what she's 
talking about: the current WikiLeaks editor-in-chief and spokesperson, 
Kristinn Hrafnsson, is a man (the host refers to Hrafnsson twice as a 
woman), and both host and guest call the Swedish sexual misconduct 
allegations "charges" (see 
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/10/10/julian_assange_marks_55_years_inside 
for Assange himself mentioning this) -- as far as I know Assange has not 
been charged with anything by Sweden. Sweden has made many telling claims 
about that "preliminary investigation" along the way (they slow-walked the 
entire investigation for years, the Swedes made false claims about how they 
could interview him: only in-person not over the Internet, and not from the 
Ecuadorian embassy but only in their facility, but both claims were untrue) 
and the investigation was closed and re-opened multiple times for no reason 
rooted in evidence. Taken as a whole this was indistinguishable from an 
accusations which were baseless from the start and the corrupt Swedish 
prosecutors were working for the US. Craig Murray's interview makes these 
points clear.

Ben Swann made some good points: the 50-week jail term for skipping bail 
has expired. Assange, therefore, shouldn't be in jail for this past that 
time (which he's served). Therefore what this is really about becomes more 
clear: the US is dictating the terms of Assange's UK imprisonment aiming 
for extradition to the US on a case that has no evidence (helping Manning 
break into computers makes no sense because Manning was given all the 
access necessary to copy the now leaked Iraq & Afghan war logs showing war 
crimes committed by American military). Assange faces no charges in the UK. 
So it's fair to conclude that the UK's sovereignty is subject to the US' 
limits: on issues of importance to the US the US sets down the allowable 
limits within which the UK works.

Craig Murray's RT interview (with a different host than the Ben Swann 
interview) is far more recommendable because Murray knows what he's talking 
about and he reaches important and reasonable conclusions given the 
available evidence.

> RT host: Now clearly one less legal woe for Julian Assange but is it
> good news?
> 
> Craig Murray: Well it's excellent news but it was entirely expected
> because, of course, the Swedish allegations were very obviously always a
> CIA fit-up and they were only ever intended to get Assange into custody
> in order to pave the way for a extradition to the United States for
> publishing; for publishing the truth about American war crimes. And now
> that these allegations have served their purpose, and plainly there was
> never a scintilla of credible evidence behind them, they're not needed
> anymore. So it's entirely expected that they're dropped now.
> 
> RT: And how much do you think this is going to affect extradition to the
> US that Assange is currently facing?
> 
> Craig Murray: Well I think the idea that anybody can be extradited to
> the United States of America for publishing documents leaked to them,
> documents which were also published by the New York Times, the
> Washington Post, The Guardian, and thousands of other media outlets
> around the world, you know this is a fundamental attack on media
> freedom. I'm afraid to say that governments in the west nowadays seem to
> have lost all clue when it comes to the fundamental meanings of liberty
> and democracy. So it's not impossible that extradition will succeed and
> will go ahead and we will be fighting very very hard to make sure that
> it does not.
> 
> RT: We here at RT have reported extensively on Assange's poor
> imprisonment conditions as he continues to be held in Belmarsh prison.
> What do you make of the conditions he's being held in? Are they fair?
> 
> Craig Murray: Oh, it's absolutely horrifying! I mean there is no reason
> whatsoever why a publisher who is in prison for nothing whatsoever
> except for having published things the government did not want him to
> publish should be kept in solitary confinement. That is simply
> appalling. Plainly. I was devastated when I saw him at his last court
> appearance at Westminster Magistrates Court, he was stumbling, he was
> incoherent, he couldn't easily remember his own name and date of birth
> and this is an extremely intelligent and articulate man. These
> conditions amount to torture. Whatever is being done to him otherwise
> physically or by medication, I don't know, but plainly he's being kept
> in conditions which are extremely injurious to his health and absolutely
> unnecessary for he has no track record of violence and doesn't need to
> be treated like a terrorist.
> 
> RT: Well at the same time Assange's legal team has claimed that their
> client is struggling to prepare his defense against that extradition
> because the computer he has been given is in rather poor condition. Do
> you think that there's any chance of those being upgraded, his computer
> being upgraded, having better resources to prepare his defense?
> 
> Craig Murray: I think, you know, his defense has been quite deliberately
> crippled at all stages. You know, the idea of giving him a virtually
> unworkable computer. All his papers and documents were stolen by the
> United States of America were given to the United States by the
> Ecuadorian embassy perfectly illegally, the United States has no rights
> to hold his documents, he has no access to prepare his defense. And, of
> course, the court refused to allow time for evidence to emerge from his
> Spanish court case that shows that his defense lawyers were spied upon
> in the Ecuadorian embassy against all rules of legal privilege by a
> security firm acting on behalf of the CIA. So everything possible is
> being done; he's not having a fair court proceeding or fair defense at
> all. This ought to be a scandal of the highest kind.
> 
> RT: There's, of course, a lot of controversy around Assange, but if we
> look specifically at the sexual assault allegations back in 2010 when
> the allegations first arose, Assange was questioned in Sweden but then
> the case was closed and he was allowed to leave the country, only to
> then be re-opened again shortly after he left. What do you make of
> Sweden's overall handling of the whole case?
> 
> Craig Murray: It's absolutely ludicrous. And then he was eventually
> questioned -- they could have questioned him at any time in the
> Ecuadorian embassy, they waited 6 years to do so. But when they
> eventually questioned him it became plain their case would not stand up,
> that there was no evidence which could form a basis of a conviction.
> They then closed the case again in 2017 then they opened it again in
> 2019, reopened it for the second time. It was never ever more than a
> preliminary investigation. To go for a European arrest warrant on the
> basis of a preliminary investigation not endorsed by any court was
> unprecedented. No, the case has obviously been a political fit-up from
> the start. And I should say that I thought today that the prosecutor,
> Eva-Marie Persson in Sweden, was an absolute disgrace. She said that the
> accusers had given credible evidence. Well if the accusers had given
> credible evidence why close the case? Unless it's also the case that the
> defense gave credible evidence. And if the defense gave credible
> evidence also why didn't you say that? I think an attempt even while
> dropping the case because you have insufficient evidence to do so in a
> way designed to blacken the name of somebody, while at the same time
> denying them the chance to prove themselves innocent in court was
> absolutely disgusting and reprehensible by Eva-Marie Persson. And I
> think the Swedish people should be ashamed of her, should be ashamed of
> the entire way they have been played by the CIA with these bogus cases
> in order to get Julian Assange into custody. Everybody in Sweden should
> be deeply deeply ashamed today.

Where are the feminist organizations calling the Swedish/American 
allegations against Assange what they really are? Anyone fighting real rape 
cases ought to be outraged at the years-long government misuse of such 
allegations; this raises reasonable doubts that allegations are raised for 
political reasons rather than reasons of seeking justice.






War criminality: Trump pardons war criminals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu5ZG-G4EVk -- Chris Hedges on Trump 
pardoning those who carry out atrocities.









Protests: France, Hong Kong, Iran -- circle of economic life?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiO-CjOfRRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evm0Hy5dcfs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjdhk1BhVao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxFbjct-Re0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_2dyQig0DE -- Multiple reports about the 1 
year of Yellow Vest (Les Gillets Jaunes) protests in France.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjti7XX9bHc -- Hong Kong protest outside 
Polytechnic University

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJqP6SLQpS8 -- Iran government pushes for 
50% petrol price increase (a petrol price increase is how the Yellow Vest 
protests started).







Neoliberalism is still failing: Big business racks up the electoral losses 
in Seattle and there's no evidence to support the notion that identity 
politics distractions are helping.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/09/seattle-amazon-kshama-sawant-socialist-elections 
--

Hallie Golden wrote:
> In a blow to Amazon, the socialist candidate Kshama Sawant appeared on
> Saturday to have beaten the business-backed Egan Orion for a seat on
> Seattle city council, despite an unprecedented financial effort from the
> tech giant.
> 
> Amazon is headquartered in the city. It ploughed $1.5m into the city
> council election through a political action committee sponsored by the
> Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.
> 
> Civic Alliance For A Sound Economy dispensed about $440,000 in support
> of Orion and backed six other candidates considered business-friendly.
> In 2015, according to the New York Times, Amazon and its employees only
> contributed about $130,000 to city council candidates.
> 
> Sawant, a member of the Socialist Alternative party and a former tech
> worker, was elected six years ago as the first socialist on the Seattle
> council in almost 100 years. On election night she trailed Orion by 8%.
> But as more ballots were counted she closed the gap, and by Friday
> evening, with the vast majority of ballots counted, she was up by almost
> 4%, or about 1,500 votes.

[...]

> “All of this clarified to people that big business is not on our side,”
> she said. “This mythology that, ‘Oh if only we behaved nicely and we
> brought big business to the table, things would work out.’ Well that’s
> been blown to smithereens. They are not on our side and in fact they
> will use every dollar that they can to try and crush the movement.”
> 
> Orion, an LGBTQ community leader and advocate for small businesses who
> considers himself a progressive liberal, has said he considered the
> funding from Amazon unnecessary and largely a distraction.
> 
> Four other candidates endorsed by the Civic Alliance For A Sound Economy
> also seemed set to lose. Phil Tavel, Heidi Wills, Mark Solomon and Jim
> Pugel trailed their opponents by at least 6%, with Solomon down by about
> 20%. Two candidates endorsed by the Pac, Alex Pedersen and Debora
> Juarez, had substantial leads.
> 
> A win for Sawant would give her a third term. She has been a fierce
> critic of the influence of big business on Seattle, and helped lead the
> push last year for the head tax, a per-employee tax on large
> corporations that was repealed a month after passing unanimously.
> 
> On Saturday, Sawant said she planned to continue her battle for a tax on
> big business. Orion does not support the head tax.

jbn: Also note that Khama Sawant's opponent Egan Orion is "an LGBTQ 
community leader and advocate for small businesses who considers himself a 
progressive liberal". Not only an advocate for small businesses who thinks 
taking money from Amazon is right and proper, but someone who is "organizer 
of the city's annual LGBT pride festival" (per Wikipedia 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant#2019_election). It's not clear 
what being LGBTQ or being an "LGBTQ community leader" has to do with this 
story other than that this is another example of how identity politics 
attempts to get us to focus on something less relevant -- Sawant's politics 
have apparently won her re-election to her third term on the Seattle city 
council. But identity politics are sometimes used to distract away from far 
more relevant political issues that affect more people's lives.

Other examples of distractive identity politics include:

- Ellen DeGeneres: who recently hosted former US president G.W. Bush on her 
TV talk show including giving him a warm and comfortable segment that 
didn't bring up his legacy which includes running a torture regime or 
launching the 2003 illegal and unethical invasion of Iraq based on lies. As 
is reported widely in LGBT press, G.W. Bush is also known for seeking a 
Constitutional amendment that would permanently ban non-heterosexual 
marriage such as DeGeneres' & de Rossi's marriage. After being photographed 
spending time with the Bushes at a football game, DeGeneres tried to 
distract attention from her class allegiance (she, her wife Portia de 
Rossi, and the Bushes are all very wealthy) and paint her friendship with 
the former president as something innocent.

- Rep. Ayanna Pressley: in 2018 Pressley, a black woman, ran an identity 
politics campaign against incumbent Rep. Mike Capuano, a white man. In one 
debate aired on Radio Boston Pressley said "We will vote the same way, but 
lead differently". Her campaign was defined chiefly by who she is rather 
than what she stands for and how she intended to vote on bills (the latter 
being the things that affect people's lives):

The Intercept wrote in 
https://theintercept.com/2018/08/18/mike-capuano-ayanna-pressley-massachusetts-primary/
> While [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez and [Nebraskan Kara] Eastman won by 
> sharply criticizing the moderate voting records of their primary 
> opponents, Pressley has demurred repeatedly when asked to point to
> major policy areas in which she disagrees with her opponent.

Ayanna Pressley also funded her campaign by relying on establishment money, 
as The Intercept pointed out:
> Pressley is backed by major donors and powerful figures within the
> Democratic Party’s elite. According to Politico, Pressley, a former aide
> to then-Sen. John Kerry, was urged by the “donor class” to make her run.

[...]

> Pressley['s] establishment [...] campaign contributors include
> Boston-area megadonor Barbara Lee; Minyon Moore, a so-called Democratic
> National Committee superdelegate and principal of the corporate lobbying
> firm Dewey Square group; and Super PAC strategist Guy Cecil.

Capuano's record of supporting progressive causes was apparently less 
valued than seeing someone who "look[s] like them" in the race:

The Intercept wrote:
> Capuano suggested in a one debate that his identity was less important
> than his track record of working on behalf of a diverse community.
> “There is a majority of no one in this district,” said Capuano. “No
> race, no ethnicity, no religion, nothing. So anybody who sits in this
> seat has to be able to work with people that don’t look like them,
> people that don’t think like them, people that don’t worship like them —
> and has to be able to bring people together.”
> 
> Capuano, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, blazed an
> unusual path on Capitol Hill. He has championed “Medicare for All” for
> over a decade, helped establish the influential Office of Congressional
> Ethics, and, as Congress has increasingly abandoned its corporate
> oversight responsibilities, has made a name for himself dressing down
> the chief executives of big banks, airlines, and other industries for
> engaging in fraud and abuse.
> 
> For some activists on the left who have supported Capuano’s policy
> stances, the prospect of challenging the progressive stalwart is a
> misguided venture. Robert Naiman, policy director of the progressive
> think tank Just Foreign Policy, said he has cheered on the wave of
> progressive insurgent candidates, but was surprised to see Capuano — who
> is known for his progressive foreign policy stances — facing a
> challenge. Naiman, a watchdog on foreign intervention, rattled off a
> list of foreign policy stances Capuano has staked, agitating for peace
> even against his own party, from leading the opposition to the war in
> Yemen to maintaining a lonely battle against President Barack Obama’s
> war in Libya.
> 
> “Taking down Capuano? That would be terrible,” Naiman said. “He’s a
> progressive champion.”

Pressley won her race against Capuano and currently represents 
Massachusetts' 7th district.




War/Technology: Microsoft funds privacy-busting facial recognition software 
(currently used against Palestinians) while claiming that "privacy is a 
fundamental human right".

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/11/microsoft-revealed-to-be-funding-israeli-surveillance-on-palestinians/ 
--

Ramzy Baroud wrote:
> Microsoft prides itself on being a leader in corporate social
> responsibility (CSR), emphasizing that “privacy (is) a fundamental human
> right.”
> 
> The Washington-State based software giant dedicates much attention, at
> least on paper, to the subject of human rights. “Microsoft is committed
> to respecting human rights,” Microsoft Global Human Rights Statement
> asserts. “We do this by harnessing the beneficial power of technology to
> help realize and sustain human rights everywhere.”
> 
> In practice, however, Microsoft’s words are hardly in line with its
> action, at least not when its human rights maxims are applied to
> occupied and besieged Palestinians.
> 
> This story shows that ethical principles are fundamentally meaningless
> if they exist in the abstract. It boils down ot whether Microsoft
> considers Palestinians to have democratic freedoms that are being
> infringed by Israeli military surveillance https://t.co/pIi8zscga2
> — Olivia Solon (@oliviasolon) October 28, 2019
> 
> Writing for the NBC news on October 27, Olivia Solon reported on
> Microsoft funding of the Israeli firm, AnyVision, which uses facial
> recognition “to secretly watch West Bank Palestinians.”
> 
> Through its venture capital arm M12, Microsoft has reportedly invested
> $78 million in the Israeli startup company that “uses facial recognition
> to surveil Palestinians throughout the West Bank, in spite of the tech
> giant’s public pledge to avoid using the technology if it encroaches on
> democratic freedoms.”
> 
> AnyVision had developed an “advanced tactical surveillance” software
> system, dubbed “Better Tomorrow” that, according to a joint NBC-Haaretz
> investigation, “lets customers identify individuals and objects in any
> live camera feed, such as a security camera or smartphone, and then
> track targets as they move between different feeds.”
> 
> As disquieting as “Better Tomorrow’s” mission sounds, it takes on a
> truly sinister objective in Palestine. “According to five sources
> familiar with the matter,” wrote Solon, “AnyVision’s technology powers a
> secret military surveillance project throughout the West Bank.”




War/Occupation:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/hypocrisy-critics-slam-israeli-army-twitter-post-191109162240458.html

> Social media users have called out the Israeli army for a Twitter post
> celebrating two female soldiers for cutting off their hair for a good
> cause.
> 
> The Israeli army said the pair donated their hair to make wigs for
> cancer patients, and described it as "a beautiful act of kindness".
> 
> A picture of the two soldiers, identified as Noam and Inbal, shows them
> smiling and holding their freshly cut hair.
> 
> But critics pointed out the irony of the post, reminding the Israeli
> army that they regularly deny thousands of cancer patients from the Gaza
> Strip permission to travel for treatment.
> 
> "Nothing says kindness like forcing cancer patients to die in an open
> air prison in Gaza," Remi Kenazi, a Palestinian-American poet based in
> New York, responded on Twitter.

[...]

> According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 39 percent of patient
> applications for permits to exit Gaza for healthcare in 2018 were
> unsuccessful.
> 
> "The ability of Gaza's hospitals to provide adequate diagnosis and
> treatment to cancer patients is severely limited due to chronic
> shortages of medicines and lack of medical equipment," WHO said in a
> report last February.
> 
> The Palestinian Ministry of Health said in February that the number of
> cancer patients in the Gaza Strip had risen to 8,515 - including 608
> children.
> 
> Most cases are diagnosed at a late stage, leading to difficulties in
> symptom control and treatment options.

Other Twitter posts on the IDF ad:

https://twitter.com/rooafzapapi96/status/1192863831497699329
> If you guys can also stop killing Palestinians that be super
> — braderoni

https://twitter.com/aptly_engineerd/status/1192886669449383936
> Israel regularly refuses permits to cancer patients trying to leave Gaza
> for treatment, something they are forced to do because the Israeli and
> Egyptian enforced siege prevents them from getting treatment at home
> — Rebecca Pierce

https://twitter.com/sarahleah1/status/1192868479419981824
> Hi Noam and Inbal - great that you want to help! can you please ask your
> bosses at the @IDF to open the #Gaza border so that cancer patients
> there can get urgently needed medical treatment? They and so many other
> Palestinians urgently need medical care but are blocked by #Israel
> — Sarah Leah Whitson

https://twitter.com/RonitLentin/status/1193198218592636928
> Revolting IDF boast about their female stormtroopers 'kindly' donating
> their hair for wigs for Gaza children with cancer, while Sick Gazans die
> because they are not permitted to access medical treatment. Genocide and
> hubris in the racial colony
> — Ronit Lentin






Corporate media obedience: Netflix CEO tells the world where Netflix stands 
on publishing the truth.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191108/10071343348/netflix-were-not-truth-to-power-business-were-entertainment-business.shtml 
--

> Netflix CEO Reed Hastings recently came out and publicly washed his 
> company's hands of any kind of value-based stance.
> 
> Hastings: We’re not in the truth-to-power business. We’re in the
> entertainment business.
> 
> That’s Reed Hastings, chief executive of Netflix Inc., defending a 
> decision earlier this year to pull an episode of comedian Hasan Minaj’s 
> “Patriot Act,” which was critical of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin 
> Salman, keeping it from airing in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Hastings: We can accomplish a lot more by being entertainment and
> influencing a global conversation about how people live than trying to
> be another news channel,” Hastings said Wednesday in an interview at the
> New York Times’ Dealbook Conference.
> 
> I can't say I know for sure exactly who is supposed to be the intended 
> audience for Hastings' remarks, but sure as hell hope the creative 
> public is listening. For content creators, Netflix has made it 
> abundantly clear that it will not support disruptive art in the face of 
> authoritarian criticism. Given how much of art and content is 
> specifically designed to speak truth to power, and given just how 
> squishy many governments legal justifications for censorship are, the 
> future is certain to be filled with these types of take down requests. 
> Do artists really want to utilize such a platform for expression?
> 
> Making all of this even more frustrating is where Hastings decides the 
> lines should be drawn, which only serves to throw all of this into more 
> confusion.
> 
> Hastings added a caveat on how far he would go:
> 
> Hastings: If they can came to us and said you can’t have gay content, we
> wouldn’t do that. We would not comply with that.

jbn: Of course Netflix won't go against "gay content". Identity politics 
are how corporations signal their virtue, how corporations let us know that 
they're safe to do business with. Netflix thus secures its place in every 
liberal's heart while doing nothing to threaten the establishment that 
makes most of us poorer, lose our liberties, and distract us so it might 
appear that we're tacitly accepting killing and torturing people worldwide. 
It's okay to have, say, an out lesbian woman talk show host enjoy an 
unchallenging chat with someone who should be in irons in the Hague 
awaiting trial as a war criminal, which is what Ellen DeGeneres did with 
former President G.W. Bush. Proper liberals won't mind because Ellen 
DeGeneres is out and proud, and after a few selfies, some dancing, and a 
few jokes about Bush's trouble wearing a rain poncho at Trump's 
inauguration will distract us from expressing our disagreement with torture 
and war.






Economy/Exploitation of the "gig economy": No unions to protect them from 
being exploited, low-cost transcription service "Rev" lowers the minimum 
price on their service.

https://gizmodo.com/transcription-platform-rev-slashes-minimum-pay-for-work-1839784941 
--

> Launched in 2010, Rev made a name for itself by charging customers who 
> wanted transcriptions of interviews, videos, podcasts, or whatever else 
> the bargain-basement price of $1 per minute of audio. That’s attracted 
> some notable clients, including heavyweight podcast This American Life, 
> according to the company. (Some teams at Gizmodo and its sister
> websites have also used Rev for transcriptions.) According to one
> whistleblower, a little less than half of that buck went to the
> contractor, while about 50 to 55 cents on the dollar lined Rev’s
> pockets.
> 
> But in an effort to “more fairly compensate Revvers for the effort
> spent on files,” Rev announced on an internal message board on Wednesday
> that its job pricing model would change—with a new minimum of 30 cents
> per minute (cpm) going into effect last Friday.
> 
> “There was an internal forum post made two days prior, but not
> everybody checks the forums,” one Revver who wished to remain anonymous
> for fear of retaliation, told Gizmodo. “A lot of people found out when
> they logged on on Friday. People are still showing up in the forums
> asking what’s going on!”
> 
> In an update reviewed by Gizmodo, marked as being appended last 
> Wednesday, Rev sought to downplay the impact of the pay algorithm 
> change. “30 cpm will be a starting price for a very small number of 
> jobs. On the other hand, some jobs will now start at 80 cpm,” the 
> company wrote, according to screenshots of the Rev’s internal message 
> board. “The goal is NOT to take pay away from Revvers but to pay more 
> fairly for the level of effort/skill required.”
> 
> According to the Rev worker who spoke to Gizmodo, “People have seen cpm 
> start higher on a few jobs, but for the most part, it feels like the 
> floor has shifted downward, and rates have dropped with it.”
> 
> Regardless of what goal Rev had in mind, the effect among some 
> transcribers is to see this as a way to short-change workers. They’re 
> right to be skeptical: After all, the gig economy has been the genesis 
> of some clever accounting—whether its platforms shifting their pay 
> algorithms or subsidizing wages with workers’ own tips—that rarely 
> favors contractors.
> 
> Update 11/11/19 8:43pm ET: A spokesperson from Rev provided the 
> following response:
> 
> "Rev freelancers have full control over what jobs they decide to work
> on. They can accept or reject any projects without consequences as well
> as set preferences indicating what jobs they choose to accept, with
> full control over all parameters including file types, audio length, and
> pay. We informed our community of these changes on our central online 
> communications hub in advance of them going into effect on Friday,
> 11/8. We welcome feedback on these changes and will continue to make 
> adjustments in order to ensure our freelancers receive fair pay."






Advertising: Is your YouTube program 'no longer commercially viable'? If 
so, YouTube might cancel it.

https://www.technewsworld.com/story/New-YouTube-Terms-of-Service-Create-Stir-86352.html

> Google has published changes to YouTube's Terms of Service Agreement
> that have stoked fears among some users. The new terms take effect Dec.
> 10.
> 
> One controversial provision addresses YouTube's hosting
> responsibilities.
> 
> "Content is the responsibility of the person or entity that provides it
> to the Service," states the new policy. "YouTube is under no obligation
> to host or serve Content."
> 
> Another section, Terminations by YouTube for Service Changes, has
> creators in an uproar.
> 
> "YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account's access to
> all or part of the Service if YouTube believes, in its sole discretion,
> that provision of the Service to you is no longer commercially viable,"
> the new ToSA states.

jbn: Google is correct -- YouTube is not obliged to publish your videos -- 
any more than, say, a newspaper owes one publication of their letters to 
the editor. It's interesting how the YouTube terms of service are changing 
to focus on what YouTube finds to be "commercially viable" but YouTube 
apparently isn't obliged to follow any restrictions they describe in those 
terms of service.

It's worth noting that one can publish videos on one's own website and also 
host videos on archive.org at no charge and embed the videos anywhere.

Related: https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms -- YouTube's current 
terms of service.

Related: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms?preview=20191210#main -- YouTube's 
terms of service that will take effect on December 10, 2019.






War/sanctions: the anti-Nicaraguan pro-regime change law "Nicaraguan 
Investment and Conditionality Act" (NICA) passes Congress unanimously, 
signed into law by Pres. Trump and not covered by English-language media.

https://thegrayzone.com/2018/12/14/congress-sanctions-nicaragua-nica-act/ --

> Every single member in both chambers of the US Congress approved
> legislation that will impose sanctions and financial restrictions on
> Nicaragua in an explicit effort to weaken its government.
> 
> Known as the NICA Act, the bill is now on its way to the desk of
> President Donald Trump, who will almost certainly sign it into law
> [update: since the publication of this article NICA was signed into
> law]. Its passage was spearheaded by neoconservative lawmakers centered
> around the Miami lobby of right-wing Latin American exiles dedicated to
> eradicating any iteration of socialism in the Western hemisphere.
> 
> The United States has spent decades trying to topple Nicaragua’s
> government, now led by the left-wing Sandinista movement. In April,
> US-backed opposition[1] figures launched an unsuccessful and exceedingly
> violent coup attempt[2] in the Central American country — one of the
> last bastions of leftist politics in an increasingly right-leaning Latin
> America.
> 
> The newly approved Nicaraguan Investment and Conditionality Act
> (NICA)[3] will give the US president the authority to impose targeted
> sanctions on Nicaraguan government officials, former officials, or
> people purportedly “acting on behalf of” Managua.
> 
> The bill also seeks to prevent international financial institutions from
> providing “any loan or financial or technical assistance” to Nicaragua’s
> government.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The NICA Act encourages the US government to increase assistance to
> anti-government “civil society in Nicaragua, including independent
> media, human rights, and anti-corruption organizations” and to “support
> the protection of human rights and anti-corruption advocates in
> Nicaragua.”
> 
> The legislation also suggests that political negotiations should be
> “mediated by the Catholic Church in Nicaragua,” which has for decades
> supported violent right-wing forces in the region.
> 
> This October, leaked audio[4] revealed the Catholic Church’s auxiliary
> bishop of Managua, Silvio Baez, conspiring with the opposition to oust
> Nicaragua’s elected president, Daniel Ortega.
> 
> “The unity that we need at this moment must include everyone opposed to
> the government, even if they are suspected of being opportunists,
> abortionists, homosexuals, [drug] traffickers…,” Baez declared,
> according to a translation of the leaked audio.
> 
> [...]
> 
> In lieu of a formal vote, the NICA Act was sent to the bipartisan House
> Committee on Foreign Affairs for amendments[5], and these changes were
> then agreed to by each chamber, without any objections.
> 
> On November 27, amendments for the combined legislation were approved
> with unanimous consent in the Senate[6]. Then on December 11, the
> changes were unanimously approved in the House[7] without objection.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The unanimous approval of the de facto economic embargo on Nicaragua
> received very little attention in the English-language media. The story
> was covered by only a small handful of local[8] news[9] outlets[10],
> although it received much more attention in right-wing Spanish-language
> media.
> 
> In an interview with Confidencial – an opposition outlet funded[11] by
> the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy[12] regime change
> arm – Nicaragua’s former foreign affairs minister Norman Caldera
> exclaimed[13] that the “NICA Act is a devastating blow for the regime.”
> 
> The right-wing channel 100% Noticias[14], whose director, Miguel Mora,
> stands accused[15] by family members of coup victims of inciting hatred
> and violence, echoed the celebratory language.
> 
> CNN Español reported[16] favorably[17] on the NICA Act (it even has a
> tag on its website[18] devoted to the law), although its
> English-language counterpart demonstrated little interest. CNN Español
> referred to the democratically elected government in Managua as a
> “regime” and noted, “The opposition of Nicaragua celebrates this
> decision.”

[1] 
https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/06/19/ned-nicaragua-protests-us-government/
[2] 
https://soundcloud.com/moderaterebels/nicaragua-right-wing-us-coup-managua-episode-22
[3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1918
[4] 
https://www.vivanicaragua.com.ni/2018/10/23/sociales/revelan-pruebas-de-reunion-conspirativa-de-silvio-baez-en-contra-del-gobierno-de-nicaragua/
[5] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1918
[6] 
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4767702/senate-unanimously-approves-sanctions-nicaragua
[7] 
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4767701/house-unanimously-approves-sanctions-nicaragua
[8] 
https://www.insidernj.com/press-release/bi-partisan-group-lawmakers-commend-final-passage-nica-act-sending-presidents-desk/
[9] 
http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/ileana-ros-lehtinens-ted-cruzs-marco-rubios-nicaraguan-investment-and-conditionality-act
[10] https://havanatimes.org/?p=145261
[11] 
https://www.ned.org/wp-content/themes/ned/search/grant-search.php?organizationName=invermeDIA&region=&projectCountry=Nicaragua&amount=&fromDate=&toDate=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&projectFocus%5B%5D=&search=&maxCount=25&orderBy=Year&start=1&sbmt=1
[12] 
https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/08/20/inside-americas-meddling-machine-the-us-funded-group-that-interferes-in-elections-around-the-globe/
[13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE8Be4gewh0
[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMAgo_0ay7Q
[15] 
https://www.tn8.tv/nacionales/463376-denuncian-miguel-mora-incitar-odio-violencia-nicaragua/
[16] 
https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/video/nicaragua-ley-nica-estados-unidos-daniel-ortega-conclusiones-kay-guerrero/
[17] 
https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/video/autores-ley-nica-rep-sires-objetivo-principal-intvw-dusa-cnnee/
[18] https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/tag/nica-act/

jbn: NICA, supported by the "US government’s National Endowment for 
Democracy regime change arm", passed the House unanimously. Sanctions have 
an ugly history of killing people, that's why sanctions are used; the 
poorest part of society suffers the effect of the sanctions the most. As 
more people suffer more people pressure their government to seek compliance 
with the power imposing the sanctions in order to end the suffering. 
Sanctions are a form of war. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is often described 
as "anti-war" and "anti-establishment" and she objects to "regime change 
wars". Are supporting sanctions consistent with being "anti-war"?







Jimmy Dore interviewed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on her vote opposing BDS 
(Boycott, Divest, Sanctions). This interview took place on Veteran's Day 
(originally known as Armistice Day) 2019 (2019-11-11).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-dzfTpguM -- A complete transcript of the 
interview Jimmy Dore has titled "Tulsi Explains Her BDS Vote":

> Jimmy Dore: People made a raucous [sic] out of your vote, they said was
> anti-BDS, right? Tell us why you voted for that, because there's a
> reason, and then you also voted for Rashid Talib's also [sic] bill that
> kind of spoke to that too. Can you talk about that?
> 
> Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, there were a few bills that came before Congress
> either for co-sponsorship or actually came to the floor for a vote. I
> took a vote on a bill that spoke to finding a peaceful solution to the
> ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Part of that bill said -- I don't
> have the exact language -- it did condemn the BDS movement, which I
> didn't necessarily agree with the language but I voted on it because I
> don't think that this BDS movement is the only or perhaps the best way
> to achieve that peaceful outcome of stability and security for both the
> Palestinian people and the Israeli people. I think that's gotta be our
> focus and objective. Right along side that I co-sponsored a bill I think
> was originally introduced by Ilhan Omar and Congressman John Lewis that
> spoke to the protection of freedom of speech in our own country which I
> wholeheartedly stand up for to protect and defend especially as a
> servicemember; [I'm] willing to give my life to do so. So while I
> personally disagree with the tactics of the BDS movement to achieve that
> objective, I absolutely and wholeheartedly support the rights for those
> who choose to be involved with that or are choosing that as their method
> of protest to be able to continue to do so without fear of repercussions
> either from state government or our federal government.
> 
> Jimmy Dore: So the natural question that is if you don't support the
> BDS, which is a nonviolent way to protest the occupation, what
> nonviolent protest -- because when they nonviolently protest they shoot
> them so this would be another -- so what would be a way that they could
> protest nonviolently if you don't support BDS?
> 
> Tulsi Gabbard: Well this is a movement that I think, especially this
> legislation is specifically talking about, people here in the United
> States as a way for them to lodge their positions and protesting
> positions within our own government which I support their right to do
> so. As we look to the negotiations ultimately that need to take place
> between the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli leadership I think
> that that negotiation process is ultimately what's gonna be required to
> find a lasting peaceful resolution.
> 
> Jimmy Dore: Right. But don't you think that -- I think that the way this
> worked is -- again, I'm older than you so I remember the apartheid state
> in South Africa and how they used divestments and that was actually a
> good pressure point. So whatever is nonviolent I'm okay for. You support
> a two-state solution, right?
> 
> Tulsi Gabbard: I do.
> 
> Jimmy Dore: Alright. Tulsi Gabbard, thanks for coming in on Veteran's
> Day. Now you're off to a Town Hall tonight, right?
> 
> Tulsi Gabbard: Thank you. Yes. We're gonna have a Town Hall this evening
> focused on honoring veterans and talking about a lot of the other issues
> that we face.

The rest of the video is a boilerplate segment Dore attaches to all of his 
videos listing where he will do upcoming live shows, and thanking his 
audience for their support.

I think it would be fair to conclude that Rep. Gabbard did herself no 
favors here despite Dore being in the tank for her. Dore has proven 
virtually every other time he's brought her up that he will lie by omission 
or support double-standards to make Gabbard look better than she is: he 
never mentions any of the evidence against calling her "anti-war" such as 
Gabbard's 2018 Intercept interview with Jeremy Scahill or an article from 
https://intpolicydigest.org/2019/07/31/how-anti-war-really-is-tulsi-gabbard/ 
which is sharply but rightly critical of her pro-drone views, her voting 
for increasing the so-called "defense" budget in 2018 (a quote from the 
article: "something that her [Gabbard's] supporters deemed unforgivable 
when Elizabeth Warren voted to do the same thing in 2017"). The 
intpolicydigest.org article also brings up that Gabbard accepted war 
profiteer money ("between 2012 and 2016 Gabbard accepted over $100,000 from 
the defence industry from the likes of BAE Systems, Raytheon, Boeing, and 
Lockheed Martin. In fact, via HuffPost[1], both Lockheed Martin and Boeing 
were two of her largest donors during the 2016 cycle")[2], and her pro-war 
voting history.

[1] 
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-anti-war-campaign-donations_n_5c530708e4b093663f5bfa69?source=post_page---------------------------

[2] From that Huffington Post article: "The congresswoman said in May 2017 
that she had “recently” stopped accepting money from the defense industry 
and would no longer accept political action committee largesse. Her total 
income from the arms industry by that point had hit $111,500, with weapons 
producers Boeing and Lockheed Martin featuring as her ninth and 12th 
biggest donors, respectively, in the 2016 election cycle."

Dore chastised Sen. Bernie Sanders for saying that he'll support whomever 
wins the Democratic Party primary; Dore pointed out that Sanders will end 
up supporting someone who stands against Sanders' ostensible values. But 
Gabbard said the same thing to CBS News and Dore never brought up this 
interview or criticized Gabbard for exactly the same reason.

In this segment ("Tulsi Gabbard Explains Her BDS Vote") Dore really tried 
hard to manufacture a better outcome for Gabbard but her anti-BDS vote dug 
her a hole she apparently can't get out of. I'm not willing to give credit 
for co-sponsorship because bill co-sponsorship is more about public 
relations than substance (see my recent comments on how the Democrats keep 
Medicare for All fans strung along by writing and co-sponsoring bills such 
as HR676 which they'll never bring to the floor for a vote even when the 
Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate).

Related: https://71republic.com/tag/tulsi-gabbard-drone-strikes/ -- Ryan 
Lau wrote more which shows how Rep. Gabbard is being judged by her words 
instead of her deeds (including referencing the aforementioned Intercept 
article where she talked about how she's down with the drone war).

Related: 
https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-November/051517.html 
-- my post to peace at anti-war.net and peace-discuss at anti-war.net "Comparing 
drone views from two military women".





Democrats/Journalism: Do you want to be associated with a party that 
arrests those who challenge its views? And what of the corrupt police who 
go along with such arrests? Why is Democracy Now playing favorites?

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/14/activist_medea_benjamin_faces_threats_of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XNPvXO2wwI -- Rep. Debbie Wasserman 
Schultz (D-FL, 97th district) threatened to arrest CodePink activist Medea 
Benjamin after Benjamin attended a press conference where Wasserman Schultz 
announced the creation of a so-called "Venezuela Democracy Caucus", a 
bipartisan Congressional group which supports the opposition in Venezuela. 
Benjamin protested the Bolivian and Venezuelan coups holding up a sign 
reading "NO COUPS [in] Bolivia [and] Venezuela" and shouted that the US 
should end its sanctions in Venezuela. Benjamin was forcibly removed from 
the press conference. Later the police visited Benjamin's home without a 
warrant and did not arrest her.

Democracy Now (DN) and RT each interviewed Benjamin and journalist Max 
Blumenthal but DN didn't interview Blumenthal:

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/10/30/headlines/blogger_max_blumenthal_says_he_was_arrested_on_false_charges 
-- Democracy Now gives Max Blumenthal a much more skeptical reception in 
its coverage of his arrest. Here's the entirety of DN's coverage of 
Blumenthal's arrest:

> Max Blumenthal, editor of the website The Grayzone, reports he was
> arrested at his home in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 25 by a team of
> police, in what he describes as an attack on the press. Blumenthal says
> he was arrested on a five-month-old warrant for assaulting a Venezuelan
> opposition member during protests at the Venezuelan embassy in March.
> Blumenthal denies the charges. He says he was held in jail for two days,
> shackled for five hours and denied a phone call.

Every sentence of that DN report contains distancing language ("[he] 
reports", "what he describes as", and "he says") instead of reporting the 
events as facts, facts that are independently verifiable (but DN apparently 
chose not to verify anything). Is there cause for this language? Does DN 
have some reason to not trust that Blumenthal was needlessly forced out of 
his home and taken into custody as per his description?

RT did the journalism DN apparently chose not to do. RT interviewed 
Blumenthal and Bill Moran, Blumenthal's attorney, and RT ran the interview 
with Blumenthal in multiple languages:

Moran interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORE4f8pvGBE -- in English

Blumenthal interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yge_QObOp3k -- in Spanish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xi9xQjyH0s -- in German
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDYNu7X5ifc -- in German

RT put the story in context, giving the viewer information DN never covered.

RT didn't question whether the arrest happened (RT said "He was arrested on 
Friday 8 hours after the publication of his latest article criticizing the 
US opposition in Venezuela."). RT used "claim" language about conclusions 
Blumenthal reached but not whether the events of Blumenthal's arrest occurred.

Both Benjamin and Blumenthal said their respective assaults and 
interactions with police are politically motivated:

> Medea Benjamin to RT: [...] It's a travesty that they [the police] came
> to my house in such numbers and so intimidating and I think it's meant
> to intimidate those of us who work against US intervention in countries
> like Venezuela. >
> Medea Benjamin to DN: [...] I guess they didn’t arrest me because they
> saw that, and maybe they feel they would have to arrest the people who
> assaulted me. But once again, I do feel very intimidated. And I don’t
> feel like this is the end, that they could show up at my house anytime
> with a warrant, just to keep me in this process, like they have done to
> so many of our other comrades, to try to stop people from standing up
> for this principle of nonintervention.

The Grayzone on Max Blumenthal's arrest:
> His arrest warrant labels him as “armed and dangerous.” Blumenthal says
> the charges are false and a retaliation against The Grayzone’s
> journalism on the US-backed coup in Venezuela and corrupt members of the
> right-wing Venezuelan opposition carrying it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hyGUXabDvE -- "Push Back with Aaron Maté" 
interview with Max Blumenthal.





Arms for kids: Royal Air Force museum has an exhibition for kids sponsored 
by Raytheon. What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES1XtdRU68U -- RT's report

jbn: But this kind of sponsorship is not new, particularly for Raytheon.

https://www.girlscouts.org/en/about-girl-scouts/our-partners/raytheon.html 
-- Girl Scouts USA bragging about their "partnership" with Raytheon 
includes the following text:

> This is the right action at the right time with the right partners. For
> example, the majority of millennial women say they would’ve been more
> interested in a cybersecurity career if they’d had access to more
> information about and training in STEM during middle and high school,
> according to a 2017 survey commissioned by Raytheon, Forcepoint, and the
> National Cyber Security Alliance.

jbn: Nothing says cooperation with "partners" like a company called 
"Forcepoint", by the way. Raytheon manufactures some of the missiles used 
to kill Yemeni in the US-backed Saudi war against Yemen which is considered 
a major humanitarian disaster with thousands dead and millions struggling 
to survive.

What does more girls in weapons manufacturing businesses lead to? 
Continuing the shift of who runs the world's weapons manufacturers, of course.

Related story: The US military-industrial complex is now run by women!

"You Dropped a Bomb on Me" by The Gap Band (August 1982)
Lyrics:
> You were the girl that changed my world
> You were the girl for me
> You lit the fuse, I stand accused
> You were the first for me
> But you turned me out, baby
> You dropped a bomb on me, baby

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVWERU_xY6I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOGowwQToM -- Redacted Tonight was one of 
very few places to cover this as continuity of policy now adhering to 
identity politics (thus undermining the legitimacy of identity politics and 
removing doubt that if women ran more stuff we'd be more peaceful; it turns 
out we'll need more than a mere change of the heads of things to accomplish 
worthwhile change like not killing people).

https://on.rt.com/9lqs -- "Girl power to kill: Women now control America’s 
military-industrial complex" from January 4, 2019:

> Women have taken control of the US’ multibillion dollar
> military-industrial complex too. Who said that war is only a man’s
> business?
> 
> With the 116th Congress being hailed as the most diverse and most female
> one yet, the rise of the empowered woman has left few sectors of
> business and government untouched and now extends to the US’ cosy-cosy
> club of arms manufacturers and their government procurers.
> 
> Politico[1] celebrated this “watershed” moment on Wednesday, announcing
> that as of January 1, the CEOs of four of the nation’s top five defense
> contractors – Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and
> Boeing’s defense wing – are now women. The latest appointment was of
> Kathy Warden as CEO and president of Northrop Grumman. Read more State
> Department arms secretary gives thanks to weapons industry in bizarre
> tweet State Department arms secretary gives thanks to weapons industry
> in bizarre tweet State Department arms secretary gives thanks to weapons
> industry in bizarre tweet
> 
> In government, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, the State Department’s
> weapons seller, the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons chief, and
> the secretary of the Air Force are all women.

[...]

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told the House Armed Services Committee:

> "If I ask everyone in this room to think about the most protective person
> you know in your life, someone who would do anything to keep you safe,
> half the people in this room would think about their moms. We are the
> protectors; that’s what the military does. We serve to protect the rest
> of you, and that’s a very natural place for a woman to be."

[...]

> With US-made weapons responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide –
> including a conservative estimate of almost 250,000 civilians in Iraq
> and Afghanistan over the last two decades and dozens of schoolchildren
> in Yemen – the irony of Wilson’s feelgood statement was not lost on some
> Twitter commenters.
> 
> “The way intersectional feminism is going right now, we’re going to have
> a very diverse group of war criminals and capitalist patriarchs,” one
> wrote.

[1] https://archive.fo/MHWwp -- source article 
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/02/how-women-took-over-the-military-industrial-complex-1049860 
requires Javascript to read.





Internet: The Internet is no longer an optional nicety (and hasn't been for 
many years), it's a necessity. It's time to nationalize Internet access -- 
high-speed access to every home should be a right.

At 1h48m18s into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvFK0jqoG2I (episode 22 of 
George Galloway's "The Mother of All Talkshows") Jeremy Corbyn has promised 
free (taxpayer-funded) Internet access for all citizens.

> George Galloway receives a note from 'Dave' in the audience: Dave says,
> "Ironic you need the Internet to get Universal Credit but it's not a
> necessity to the Tories.". [...] Now let's talk about that for a minute:
> The Tories regarded it as 'Communist' [...], a kind of madness anyways,
> thei idea that we should nationalize broadband and give it to people,
> every person in the country, for free. "A communist crackpot"[1], that's
> what it was. Now being neither a communist nor a crackpot myself, I
> wondered why I felt that this was a very good idea. Why should broadband
> be owned by private companies? Why should Richard Branson or Mark
> Zuckerberg or any of the other plutocrats that are running these
> megacorporations in the media/Internet-based companies, why should they
> own the airwaves? The country, the state, the people should own these
> airwaves. I really don't get why people are upset about it. Then I began
> to get, once I said this, a bit of a backlash, people saying 'Well, we
> don't trust the state to control our access to the Internet' but of
> course the state already does. They can tell Richard Branson to cut you
> off and Richard Branson will cut you off. The idea that the private
> corporations are more of a guarantor of Internet freedom than the
> elected government of the day in Britain would be, as I think,
> fanciful.

[1] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Z_nH-fOqI for a report on this.

jbn: I think Galloway is right on this, both that the state doesn't already 
surveil and control your access, and in pointing out the folly in thinking 
that small-d democratic control over net access is somehow less desirable 
than leaving all access to private entities. Market-based access (one pays 
to get on the net) doesn't even mean that those who can pay can reliably 
get on the net, given that government override power exists. The US 
government throws around its weight in those hearings on how to get 
YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook to carry out the government's censorious 
wishes (censorship that would be illegal for the government to carry out 
directly). Anyone who depends on any pressured firm to connect them to the 
Internet would be cut off precisely as Galloway described. And currently 
the great scam of the Internet is that one must simultaneously appeal to 
multiple unaccountable private actors (ISPs, domain hoster, website/blog 
hoster, and more) to do anything online. As YouTube recently pointed out, 
they don't owe anyone video hosting. They're empowered to cut anyone off at 
any time without even giving a reason. Thus the terms of service are vague 
markers of how oppressive they wish to be in order to not appear quite so 
capricious as they cut people off for saying the "wrong" things.

-J