From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 1 15:16:37 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:16:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Famous Spanish jurist Baltasar Garzon has been admitted to a hospital in Madrid Message-ID: <005b01d60838$96be8f30$c43bad90$@comcast.net> From: David Johnson [mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 2:00 PM To: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Subject: Famous Spanish jurist Baltasar Garzon has been admitted to a hospital in Madrid How convenient. Remember when Gavin MacFadyen died in 2016, and then Lenin Moreno was elected in 2017, and then Arjen Kamphuis disappeared in 2018 and then Julian Assange was arrested in 2019? Famous Spanish jurist Baltasar Garzon has been admitted to a hospital in Madrid after testing positive for Covid-19. He has provided legal counsel to WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, among other things. Garzon, 64, was admitted to the Ruber clinic in Madrid on Tuesday, after five days of high fever at home. He tested positive for the coronavirus and was given the prognosis of respiratory failure, Spanish media reported. The former judge of the National Court had self-isolated at his home after complaining about a fever and chest pains, before the symptoms worsened. Spanish media is reporting that the former judge Baltasar Garz??n, who in 1998 ordered the arrest of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for human rights abuses, is receiving treatment for a suspected case of #COVID ?`19 https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2020/03/24/5e7a4ad9fdddff98418b466b.html ?? Garzon became famous as a judge who cracked down on the Basque separatist organization ETA, and pursued human rights abuse charges against Spain??s Franco government, the Pinochet junta in Chile, and the Argentine military dictatorship. He has provided legal counsel to Assange since 2012, finding himself under considerable pressure at times ?C such as when masked raiders broke into his office in 2017. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 1 16:13:51 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:13:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: where we are currently at, where we should be going and how to make that happen. Message-ID: <007501d60840$967c5c70$c3751550$@comcast.net> This is a great interview with the former president of the Northern California Progressive caucus / Bernie Sanders supporter, that details where we are currently at, where we should be going and how to make that happen. #TheJimmyDoreShow Why We Must Criticize Progressive Leaders Including Bernie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzqcX9wl1UY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Apr 1 20:25:25 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 20:25:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Keywords: capitalism, late capitalism Message-ID: Keywords 040120 Some terms potentially useful in political analysis & polemics capitalism, late capitalism CAPITALISM n. > An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. ? American Heritage? Dictionary > capitalism (Economics) Also called: free enterprise or private enterprise > n. an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions. Compare socialism1 ? Collins English Dictionary > n. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations. [1850?55] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary > a system of economics under which ownership of and investment in the means of production and distribution depends chiefly upon corporations and private individuals. > a theory or system in which property and investment in business are owned and controlled by individuals directly or through ownership of shares in companies. Cf. communism. ? capitalist, n., adj. capitalistic, adj. ? Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. > 1. An economic system essentially based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. 2. An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and producers compete to maximize their profits. ? Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words by Diagram Group LATE CAPITALISM The advanced stage of unmanaged capitalism in which corporations and the wealthy, having run out of quick and easy paths to profit and economic growth, begin cannibalizing the societies in which they operate instead of investing in them. Features: Declining wages for workers, privatization of government, dismantling of social services, sale of cultural & national heritage, debtor's prisons, corporate invasion of people's personal lives, and punishment (and ultimately enslavement) of the poor. + A: Did you hear that Zuckerberg is tearing down the national park to build his new fortified megamansion? B: Yeah dude, wanna go to the Pepsi?-sponsored protest against it later? A: Truly, late capitalism is the best system to live under. + A: Did you know that boomers can now spend $8,000 to get transfusions of children's blood so they live longer? B: Haha, late capitalism strikes again! ? Urban Dictionary 040120 [ Some have pointed out that Karl Marx?s famed treatise is about Capital (the economic system, as the title announces) & says nothing explicit about Capitalism (the ideology). ? RSz. ] # # # From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Apr 1 20:25:25 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 20:25:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Keywords: capitalism, late capitalism Message-ID: Keywords 040120 Some terms potentially useful in political analysis & polemics capitalism, late capitalism CAPITALISM n. > An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. ? American Heritage? Dictionary > capitalism (Economics) Also called: free enterprise or private enterprise > n. an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions. Compare socialism1 ? Collins English Dictionary > n. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations. [1850?55] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary > a system of economics under which ownership of and investment in the means of production and distribution depends chiefly upon corporations and private individuals. > a theory or system in which property and investment in business are owned and controlled by individuals directly or through ownership of shares in companies. Cf. communism. ? capitalist, n., adj. capitalistic, adj. ? Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. > 1. An economic system essentially based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. 2. An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and producers compete to maximize their profits. ? Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words by Diagram Group LATE CAPITALISM The advanced stage of unmanaged capitalism in which corporations and the wealthy, having run out of quick and easy paths to profit and economic growth, begin cannibalizing the societies in which they operate instead of investing in them. Features: Declining wages for workers, privatization of government, dismantling of social services, sale of cultural & national heritage, debtor's prisons, corporate invasion of people's personal lives, and punishment (and ultimately enslavement) of the poor. + A: Did you hear that Zuckerberg is tearing down the national park to build his new fortified megamansion? B: Yeah dude, wanna go to the Pepsi?-sponsored protest against it later? A: Truly, late capitalism is the best system to live under. + A: Did you know that boomers can now spend $8,000 to get transfusions of children's blood so they live longer? B: Haha, late capitalism strikes again! ? Urban Dictionary 040120 [ Some have pointed out that Karl Marx?s famed treatise is about Capital (the economic system, as the title announces) & says nothing explicit about Capitalism (the ideology). ? RSz. ] # # # From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Apr 2 03:33:46 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 22:33:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald's new show -- System Update -- related notes, pointers Message-ID: <982ab65c-9cf0-7b8a-739f-dc82d15cd215@forestfield.org> Glenn Greenwald's new show, System Update, debuted today. Greenwald's first guest is Kyle Kulinski (host of Secular Talk on YouTube) and Liz Franczak. System Update is in two languages -- English and Portuguese. The first episode of System Update is about the Sanders campaign (which doesn't appear to be doing well if you believe he was running to win, a perspective I believe was successfully debunked by the late Bruce Dixon in https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary in 2015). System Update playlist (reload this to find new episodes) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLW0Gy9pTgVntTChFgj0xwMrsc1GO32-DZ Greenwald interview on The Hill about his new show, related issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaEN2LRF3wk Kulinski's Secular Talk show https://www.youtube.com/user/SecularTalk/videos Liz Franczak https://twitter.com/liz_franczak Franczak's TrueAnon show https://soundcloud.com/trueanonpod The Hill show https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPWXiRWZ29zrxPFIQT7eHSA/videos I'm not such a big fan of Kulinski's show because I think he's far less radical than I am about the topics he covers, still willing to accept the acceptable limits of debate set down by the establishment -- two major corporate parties and their establishment-friendly media outlets -- and you see this in how he frames the issues he covers. But he comes up with interesting clips of things which are worth watching. So sometimes you can easily pick one of his videos and fast-forward through Kulinski's commentary. I'm not familiar with Liz Franczak's work so I don't have any opinion of her views. Greenwald says she co-hosts TrueAnon and takes a different tack than Kulinski -- "Liz talks about these events from a somewhat more systemic and analytical framework than Kyle does". I think Greenwald raises an excellent point that Sanders "simply wanted to run against the Democratic establishment as an abstraction but had one foot outside the party but one foot, for decades, in it and therefore was incapable of mounting the kind of aggressive condemnation of the Democratic Party establishment wing that probably was necessary to convince large numbers of people to abandon it and ignore their leaders decrees to vote for Joe Biden and instead vote for him [Sanders]". I also think that the clip we see of Sanders saying that "the country is sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails" to Hillary Clinton is equivalent to the sheepdogging we see today where Sanders constrains campaign insiders from "too harsh" critiques of Biden (including admonishing Sanders campaigner David Sirota for writing about Biden's corruption), effectively campaigns for Biden by saying "Joe is a friend of mine", "Joe is a decent guy", and "Joe Biden can beat Donald Trump" while ostensibly running against Biden. Dixon got this all right years ago and this is a clear reason why Sanders shouldn't be POTUS, and why you can't trust the Democratic Party. Sanders' support of the working class has to be lowered accordingly -- if he can't stand up to the establishment of the party he's effectively a part of, how can he be trusted to stand up for your values in your time of need? Greenwald's analysis is well worth hearing and considering. I'm puzzled about The Hill's devotion to "social distancing". I've seen them do shows from their homes but lately they seem to be back in-studio which makes no sense to me at all. This means they are risking spreading infection with each other but also with all of their on-set production staff and everyone all of these people live with. This is very strange, particularly in light of the rightfully strong criticism one can level at: Bernie Sanders silently tacitly accepting telling people to vote in DNC primary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syE3mMd8bMo DNC pushing people to vote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPo3NR8ln0Q both of which Jimmy Dore has been covering quite well. -J From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Apr 2 14:18:21 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:18:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVz4oCL4oCLIGNh?= =?utf-8?q?n_be_part_of_the_global_ceasefire?= References: <5e85f3c6409b0_1005d3ff01e73b1c830915c5@ip-10-0-0-214.mail> Message-ID: <976C465C-31CF-48F0-9E55-60E1222371D6@newsfromneptune.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: World BEYOND War > Subject: United States?? can be part of the global ceasefire > Date: April 2, 2020 at 9:16:38 AM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Reply-To: info at worldbeyondwar.org > > > We need United States to be part of the global ceasefire! > > > 1) Sign the petition for a global ceasefire . > > 2) Contact your nation?s government and get a clear commitment to engaging in the ceasefire (not just urging others to do so). > > 3) Use the Comments section on this page to report on what you learn ! > > United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres proposed this global ceasefire: > > Our world faces a common enemy: COVID-19. > > The virus does not care about nationality or ethnicity, faction or faith. It attacks all, relentlessly. > > Meanwhile, armed conflict rages on around the world. > > The most vulnerable ? women and children, people with disabilities, the marginalized and the displaced ? pay the highest price. > > They are also at the highest risk of suffering devastating losses from COVID-19. > > Let?s not forget that in war-ravaged countries, health systems have collapsed. > > Health professionals, already few in number, have often been targeted. > > Refugees and others displaced by violent conflict are doubly vulnerable. > > The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war. > > That is why today, I am calling for an immediate global ceasefire in all corners of the world. > > It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives. > > To warring parties, I say: > > Pull back from hostilities. > > Put aside mistrust and animosity. > > Silence the guns; stop the artillery; end the airstrikes. > > This is crucial? > > To help create corridors for life-saving aid. > > To open precious windows for diplomacy. > > To bring hope to places among the most vulnerable to COVID-19. > > Let us take inspiration from coalitions and dialogue slowly taking shape among rival parties in some parts to enable joint approaches to COVID-19. But we need much more. > > End the sickness of war and fight the disease that is ravaging our world. > > It starts by stopping the fighting everywhere. Now. > > That is what our human family needs, now more than ever. > > Here is a running list of the nations committed to it . > > Help us update the list! > > 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. > > > 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 . > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Apr 2 17:31:04 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 12:31:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Far Side Message-ID: [image: image.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 89435 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Apr 4 03:18:06 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 22:18:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: where we are currently at, where we should be going and how to make that happen. In-Reply-To: <007501d60840$967c5c70$c3751550$@comcast.net> References: <007501d60840$967c5c70$c3751550$@comcast.net> Message-ID: David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > This is a great interview with the former president of the Northern > California Progressive caucus / Bernie Sanders supporter, that details where > we are currently at, where we should be going and how to make that happen. Jimmy Dore has been one of the few people to offer actionable ideas on what needs to be done now: strikes, particularly among workers we all know are critical -- grocery store workers & Amazon.com workers are the two Dore points to most often -- so that the public can put a list of demands in front of Congress and not go back to work until those demands are met such as establishing a Universal Basic Income and Medicare for All (there are now 2 bills to implement this[1]). Dore is also sharp on pointing out how the so-called progressive Democrats are doing nothing helpful now (he names the same people in Congress including: Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna, and more). Rep. Omar had a particularly shameful interview on Democracy Now including discussing the recent massive business bailout bill (constituting the largest wealth transfer) where she said mutually exclusive things right next to each other and Amy Goodman never challenged her on it: From https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/27/rep_ilhan_omar_coronavirus_relief_bill > Rep. Ilhan Omar: [...] I think this crisis and this pandemic really lays bare the > kind of inequalities that have existed for far too long in our country. And the > conversations we?re having right now as we put forth our third relief package > shows us that there is often a prioritization of corporate interests and often not > a prioritization of the interests of the people. > > So, today I plan on voting for this bill, not because it?s perfect or it?s > sufficient, but because I think, in a time where we are facing one of the largest > crises we?ve faced in our country, it?s going to be really important for us to do > everything that we can to protect the lives and the livelihoods of the people of > this country. [...] Note how Rep. Omar used a false dichotomy as an excuse for her "bending the knee to the party" (as Jimmy Dore rightly put it) and spoke about the bill as if it helps us in some serious way. She continued on explaining our public needs as if a one-time $1200 (with possible $500/child additions) is really going to help people in what looks like a multi-month period in which people can't work, get paid, and therefore pay their bills. The phrase "Medicare for All" doesn't make an appearance anywhere in that interview. Goodman has really fallen since the run-up to the 2003 US/UK-led Iraq invasion: coverage like the above, pro-Russiagate coverage, and pro-Syrian "gas attack" allegations which directly contradict OPCW engineer evidence. To Dore's credit: he got all three of these major modern issues right. However I think that Jimmy Dore could be a little more understanding when it comes to the feckless so-called "progressive" media because Dore had a weak spot for covering Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 campaign. Dore never covered Gabbard's 2018 Intercept interview in which Gabbard (who was widely called "anti-war" by supporters and critics alike, a review she accepted) described drone bombing as "surgical strikes" and she said that didn't want to see "a large amount of civilian casualties"[2]. That's pro-war talk. Dore criticized that kind of talk when other people said it (like Sanders repeating CIA talking points about the Venezuelan coup attempts). Dore remained silent as Gabbard told Primo Nutmeg and CBS News[3] that she was a loyal Democrat, vowing never to run outside the Democratic Party, and when she promised around August 2019 to ultimately support the Democratic nominee (which meant supporting someone more belligerent than she was taken to be). When Sanders demonstrated that same fealty by pledging to support the Democratic nominee very early Dore chastised him for it[4] but remained silent on Gabbard who did the same thing. It wasn't that long ago that Dore was doing shows which were so highly supportive of Gabbard that Dore's position on Gabbard was indistinguishable from being 'in the tank' for her. I think that Dore was right to call attention to how bad (for the public) Sanders' choices were, but it looks like Dore preferred to keep good relations with Gabbard perhaps in order to increase the odds of securing another interview with her. Dore should have applied his mostly valid criticism evenhandedly and demonstrated the point he's now struggling to make -- progressives need to criticize their own leaders when they see those leaders doing bad things. [1] And neither author of either bill -- Sen. Sanders and Rep. Jayapal -- are arguing for their bills nor are they calling for much of anything that would help ordinary Americans. Sen. Sanders only recently wrote "I support workers who strike, conduct a sick-out, or participate in a walk-off to support our collective health and safety amid this pandemic. Period." in https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1245481619772903425 on 1 April. But he had to be pushed to that by advocates who embarrassed him like Jimmy Dore. [2] https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ around 28m43s into the audio interview or search the transcript for the phrase "surgical strikes". [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzVSYBNgOeI and https://www.cbsnews.com/video/tulsi-gabbard-on-her-political-future/ [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5BVBJpjNZo around 10m22s. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Apr 4 15:14:01 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 10:14:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fwd: My joke for the times In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007101d60a93$ac323490$04969db0$@comcast.net> Good one ! I will try and remember this one for the future. David J. From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Friday, April 03, 2020 10:11 PM To: peace Subject: [Peace] Fwd: My joke for the times Three guys walk into an empty bar. They see the bartender on the floor with blood gushing out of a bullet wound on his thigh. The first guy, a right winger says, "Quick, grab a couple bottles and lets get out of here, ignore the bartender, he probably got what he deserved." The second guy a liberal, says "No absolutely not, " we need to find someone to provide a bandaid." The third guy, a socialist says "Call an ambulance, this bullet needs to come out, as he tears off his shirt and makes a tourniquet." Think: long term solutions, quick acting, and self reliance. Karen Aram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Apr 5 01:16:08 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 01:16:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Bigger Picture is Hiding Behind a Virus Message-ID: <2A484935-0BF4-4BD0-8C06-0749ED6EC28B@illinois.edu> Jonathn Cook writes: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/55020.htm ?But again the object of our attention is not as much ours as we may believe. While we focus on graphs, while we twitch the curtains to see if neighbors are going for a second run or whether families are out in the garden celebrating a birthday distant from an elderly parent, we are much less likely to be thinking about how well the crisis is being handled. The detail, the mundane is again crowding out the important, the big picture. Our current fear is an enemy to our developing and maintaining a critical perspective. The more we are frightened by graphs, by deaths, the more we are likely to submit to whatever we are told will keep us safe. Undercover of the public?s fear, and of justified concerns about the state of the economy and future employment, countries like the US are transferring huge sums of public money to the biggest corporations. Politicians controlled by big business and media owned by big business are pushing through this corporate robbery without scrutiny ? and for reasons that should be self-explanatory. They know our attention is too overwhelmed by the virus for us to assess intentionally mystifying arguments about the supposed economic benefits, about yet more illusory trickle-down. There are many other dramatic changes being introduced, almost too many and too rapidly for us to follow them properly. Bans on movement. Intensified surveillance. Censorship. The transfer of draconian powers to the police, and preparations for the deployment of soldiers on the streets. Detention without trial. Martial law. Measures that might have terrified us when Trump was our main worry, or Brexit, or Russia, may now seem a price worth paying for a ?return to normality?. Paradoxically, a craving for the old-normal may mean we are prepared to submit to a new normal that could permanently deny us any chance of returning to the old-normal. The point is not just that things are far more provisional than most of us are ready to contemplate; it?s that our window on what we think of as ?the real world?, as ?normal?, is almost entirely manufactured for us. ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Apr 5 04:32:16 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 23:32:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Recommended video: Chris Hedges interviews Bruce Fein on "Death of the US Constitution" Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNO18dRip-U -- Chris Hedges interviews Bruce Fein on "Death of the US Constitution" A transcript should show up on https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/ eventually. Reload that page from time to time to see when it appears. It's an interesting show particularly interesting because the issues raised span administrations, this is not Trump Derangement Syndrome. Sadly, Bruce forgot to turn off his tracker (cell phone), so prior to 13m50s his points are accompanied by the chirps and buzzes of his iThing. -J From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Apr 5 19:27:15 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Recommended video: Danny Haiphong interviewed on Jimmy Dore Message-ID: In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFCyRuaFsGc Jimmy Dore reviews recent Bernie Sanders speaks with Black Agenda Report (BAR -- https://www.blackagendareport.com/) author Danny Haiphong and reviews Sen. Sanders' hourly tweets in which Sanders: - pointed readers to some good news about school district funding in Wisconsin which Sanders apparently had nothing to do with getting, - endorsed inactionable claims about our needs and provided no clear path to get there, nor did Sanders promise to use his Senatorial power to help us get what he said we need, - claimed that Amazon's "greed has got to end" while he took no action to help workers withhold their labor (strike) to achieve a better bargaining position. What could Sanders have done before now? What should Sanders be doing now? Jimmy Dore has offered specific actionable choices across recent videos including the above video: - Sanders could have contacted labor organizers to work with Amazon workers and grocery store workers to schedule a strike. Dore has previously asked us to imagine what power a 1-2 day coordinated strike would give workers leverage to demand better working conditions (like Amazon workers not working among known-infected coworkers in Amazon's warehouses, and not firing people who walk off the job choosing their health and safety over picking & packing). But Sanders (who calls himself "Organizer in Chief") didn't use his appreciable mailing list contacts to coordinate with labor leaders and workers. - Sanders could have put a stop to the horrible bill that he recently voted for which will give big businesses enormous sums of money (I don't think it's clear just how much in total they'll get) and ostensibly will give citizens $1200 plus $500 per child in a one-time payout (which will predictably not help people for what is shaping up to be a multi-month stay-at-home/"social distance" crisis). It only takes one Senator to stop a bill for a time during which better policy could have been coordinated and demanded. But there's no evidence that Sanders even tried. Danny Haiphong (from Black Agenda Report) offered excellent review of the current situation, consistent with what we've come to expect from BAR authors -- https://www.blackagendareport.com/ is a very underrated site. Only now is Jimmy Dore coming around to realizing what the late BAR author Bruce Dixon saw through years ago in https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary You can find more of Haiphong's writings online: https://www.workers.org/author/danny-haiphong/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/daneil-haiphong/ and he's co-author of "American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: a People?s History of Fake News, From the Revolutionary War to the War On Terror". I know that some of you find Jimmy Dore's language hard to hear, but I encourage you to consider looking up Sanders' Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/berniesanders) and following along at least with some of what Dore has to say. You won't find coverage of these issues in many places or offered in a such a timely way (and that's a continuing shame of the so-called "progressive" media, particularly shows like Democracy Now that continue on with paid staff, professional editing equipment, and operating budgets). I don't find Dore's language tough to take, I find it interesting that he is slowly coming around to realizing that perhaps he was too easy on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard all along (he currently says he's "going scorched earth" on her because she's a member of a set of Democrats who are "feckless"), and that Sen. Bernie Sanders never ran to win (not in 2016 and not now). Relatedly: BAR editor Margaret Kimberley's interview with Primo Nutmeg is also highly recommended -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCeVx_xEl7M -- and I'll have something to say about that in another post (as that deserves more coverage as well). From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Apr 5 20:23:06 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:23:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] buzzword, condescension, disingenuous Message-ID: Buzzwords 040520 A review of some terms sometimes useful in political analysis & polemics buzzword, condescension, disingenuous BUZZWORD (b?z?w?rd?) n. A stylish or trendy word or phrase, especially when occurring in a specialized field. ? American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language > a word or phrase, often sounding authoritative or technical, that has come into vogue in popular culture or a particular profession. [1965?70] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary > A word used in a particular jargon that gains a wider, fashionable, currency. ? Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words by Diagram Group [ Once or recently or currently buzzy: synergy, serendipity, condescending, disingenuous, vulnerable, resilient ? RSz. ] CONDESENSION (k?n?d?-s?n?sh?n) n. 1. The act of condescending or an instance of it. 2. Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude. [Late Latin cond?sc?nsi?, cond?sc?nsi?n-, from cond?sc?nsus, past participle of cond?scendere, to condescend; see condescend.] -- American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language > the act or an instance of behaving in a patronizing way ? Collins English Dictionary ? Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 ? > 1. an act or instance of condescending. 2. behavior that is patronizing or condescending. 3. voluntary assumption of equality with a person regarded as inferior. [1635?45; < Late Latin cond?sc?nsi?. See con-, descension] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary DISINGENUOUS (d?s??n-j?n?yo?o-?s) adj. 1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "Increasingly, the question of immigration has become a disingenuous stalking-horse for race and racial hostility" (Tyler Stovall). 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-na?f. 3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive. Usage Note: Disingenuous means "not ingenuous," that is, not innocent, naive, or guileless. As such it can refer to someone who is insincere or calculating, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as "tough love," or to someone who is pretending to be unsophisticated, as in "I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!" he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Both of these examples were accepted by 90 percent of the Usage Panel in our 2016 survey. As with many words containing prefixes that negate (dis-) or seem to negate (in-), speakers sometimes lose track of exactly what is being negated, and sometimes use disingenuous when ingenuous would be more appropriate, namely as a synonym for naive. This usage is considered an error by careful writers: in our 2016 survey, 87 percent of the Usage Panel disapproved of the phrase the disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists. ? American Heritage? Dictionary # # # From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Apr 5 20:23:06 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:23:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] buzzword, condescension, disingenuous Message-ID: Buzzwords 040520 A review of some terms sometimes useful in political analysis & polemics buzzword, condescension, disingenuous BUZZWORD (b?z?w?rd?) n. A stylish or trendy word or phrase, especially when occurring in a specialized field. ? American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language > a word or phrase, often sounding authoritative or technical, that has come into vogue in popular culture or a particular profession. [1965?70] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary > A word used in a particular jargon that gains a wider, fashionable, currency. ? Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words by Diagram Group [ Once or recently or currently buzzy: synergy, serendipity, condescending, disingenuous, vulnerable, resilient ? RSz. ] CONDESENSION (k?n?d?-s?n?sh?n) n. 1. The act of condescending or an instance of it. 2. Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude. [Late Latin cond?sc?nsi?, cond?sc?nsi?n-, from cond?sc?nsus, past participle of cond?scendere, to condescend; see condescend.] -- American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language > the act or an instance of behaving in a patronizing way ? Collins English Dictionary ? Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 ? > 1. an act or instance of condescending. 2. behavior that is patronizing or condescending. 3. voluntary assumption of equality with a person regarded as inferior. [1635?45; < Late Latin cond?sc?nsi?. See con-, descension] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary DISINGENUOUS (d?s??n-j?n?yo?o-?s) adj. 1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "Increasingly, the question of immigration has become a disingenuous stalking-horse for race and racial hostility" (Tyler Stovall). 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-na?f. 3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive. Usage Note: Disingenuous means "not ingenuous," that is, not innocent, naive, or guileless. As such it can refer to someone who is insincere or calculating, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as "tough love," or to someone who is pretending to be unsophisticated, as in "I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!" he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Both of these examples were accepted by 90 percent of the Usage Panel in our 2016 survey. As with many words containing prefixes that negate (dis-) or seem to negate (in-), speakers sometimes lose track of exactly what is being negated, and sometimes use disingenuous when ingenuous would be more appropriate, namely as a synonym for naive. This usage is considered an error by careful writers: in our 2016 survey, 87 percent of the Usage Panel disapproved of the phrase the disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists. ? American Heritage? Dictionary # # # From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Apr 5 21:45:43 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 21:45:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hardcore Trump Supporters Message-ID: INSIDE THE MINDS OF HARDCORE TRUMP SUPPORTERS https://psmag.com/news/inside-the-minds-of-hardcore-trump-supporters?fbclid=IwAR00dxPWuxRCSUMYuyk-uS1ui3EPY9ehCX7M-T03lBhSPqpd5H_n1y3UL2c New research finds the president's earliest and strongest followers embody a particularly belligerent strain of authoritarian thinking. TOM JACOBS Pacific Standard [? Santa Barbara, CA] FEB 15, 2018 About 700 people gathered at the Minnesota capitol building in St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 4th, 2017, to show support for Donald Trump. Given the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, and the ill-defined phenomenon known as Trumpism, it's vital that we understand the psychology that attracted Americans to the real estate mogul in the first place. Research suggests such voters are driven by a combination of racial resentment and authoritarianism. Sociologist David Norman Smith cited both in a just-published paper, in which he argues hardcore Trump supporters "target minorities and women" and "favor domineering and intolerant leaders who are uninhibited about their biases." And yet, there's something puzzling about that equation. If authoritarians, by definition, revere authority, why would they support an anti-establishment candidate like Trump? And why are they OK with his administration slandering bedrock American institutions as the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A second recently published study provides an answer: There are different strains of authoritarian thinking. And support for Trump is associated with what is arguably the most toxic type: authoritarian aggression. The study suggests the bulk of his supporters, at least in the Republican primaries, were not old-fashioned conservatives who preach obedience and respect for authority. Rather, they were people who take a belligerent, combative approach toward people they find threatening. The notion that there are different types of authoritarians was proposed in the 1980s by University of Manitoba psychologist Robert Altemeyer, and refined in 2010 by a research team led by John Duckitt of the University of Auckland. In the journal Political Psychology, that team defined right-wing authoritarianism as "a set of three related ideological attitude dimensions." They are: "Conventionalism," a.k.a. "traditionalism," which is defined as "favoring traditional, old-fashioned social norms, values, and morality." Authoritarian submission," defined as "favoring uncritical, respectful, obedient, submissive support for existing authorities and institutions." "Authoritarian aggression," defined as "favoring the use of strict, tough, harsh, punitive, coercive social control." Duckitt and his colleagues created a survey designed to measure each of these three facets. It was measured by participants' responses to statements such as "The old-fashioned ways, and old-fashioned values, still show the best way to live" (traditionalism); "Our country would be great if we show respect for authority and obey our leaders" (submission); and "The way things are going in this country, it's going to take a lot of 'strong medicine' to straighten out the troublemakers, criminals, and perverts" (aggression). A research team led by psychologist Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark used those scales to try to tease out why some studies link Trump support to authoritarianism, while others do not. It discovered the problem with the latter is they tend to either heavily or exclusively focus on the "submission" dimension, which has traditionally been studied in the context of child-rearing (as in, "Do you expect your children to unquestioningly obey their elders?"). As it turns out, that's the facet of authoritarianism that has the least to do with support for Trump. Ludeke's study, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, featured 1,444 participants recruited online in April of 2016. They responded to 18 authoritarianism-focused statements?six for each facet?and indicated who, among the presidential candidates remaining in the race at that point, they supported. "Consistent with Trump's representation of the world as a dangerous place requiring harsh treatment of deviant minorities," they write, "Trump supporters were high on authoritarian aggression." Strong support for conventionalism/traditionalism was also linked to support for Trump, but high scores on the submission category?that is, respect for authority, and obedience to superiors?was not. THE EMOTIONAL ROOTS OF POLITICAL POLARIZATION: New research argues feelings of disillusionment prompt people to take more extreme positions. Smith's analysis of data from the American National Election Study reaches a similar conclusion. He reports "enthusiastic Trump voters are also enthusiastic about domineering leaders, and that they are not especially enthusiastic about respectful children." Authoritarianism in the Trump era "is not the wish to follow any and every authority but, rather, the wish to support a strong and determined authority who will 'crush evil and take us back to our true path,'" Smith and his co-author, Eric Hanley, conclude. Participants in Ludeke's study also completed surveys measuring Social Dominance Orientation?the belief that one group has the right to dominate others. Replicating previous research, they found this philosophy, which often accompanies authoritarianism, correlated with support for Trump. So the very things a majority of Americans find disconcerting, if not disqualifying, about Trump?his need to dominate, his thinly veiled white supremacism, and his blunt, bullying language?is precisely what appeals to his hardcore fans. They are very likely stand to by their man, whatever scandals might emerge. That said, these results suggest Democrats have a decent chance of peeling away a different slice of the Republican-leaning electorate?if they can defend liberal policies while embodying a more traditional respect for authority. Those "submission"-oriented voters don't have a natural affinity for Trump. They may prefer candidates who embody a traditional sense of dignity?people they can feel comfortable looking up to. That possibility aside, the picture painted in both of these studies is pretty bleak from a progressive perspective. Smith's paper, the lead article in the March 2018 issue of Critical Sociology, concludes this way: Most Trump voters cast their ballots for him with their eyes open, not despite his prejudices but because of them. Their partisanship, whether positive (toward Trump and the Republicans) or negative (against Clinton and the Democrats), is intense. This partisanship is anchored in anger and resentment among mild as well as strong Trump voters. Anger, not fear, was the emotional key to the Tea Party, and that seems to be true for Trumpism as well. If so, the challenge for progressives is greater than many people have imagined. Hostility to minorities and women cannot be wished away; nor can the wish for domineering leaders. > Tom Jacobs is a senior staff writer at Pacific Standard, where he specializes in social science, culture, and learning. He is a veteran journalist and former staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Apr 5 21:45:43 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 21:45:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hardcore Trump Supporters Message-ID: INSIDE THE MINDS OF HARDCORE TRUMP SUPPORTERS https://psmag.com/news/inside-the-minds-of-hardcore-trump-supporters?fbclid=IwAR00dxPWuxRCSUMYuyk-uS1ui3EPY9ehCX7M-T03lBhSPqpd5H_n1y3UL2c New research finds the president's earliest and strongest followers embody a particularly belligerent strain of authoritarian thinking. TOM JACOBS Pacific Standard [? Santa Barbara, CA] FEB 15, 2018 About 700 people gathered at the Minnesota capitol building in St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 4th, 2017, to show support for Donald Trump. Given the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, and the ill-defined phenomenon known as Trumpism, it's vital that we understand the psychology that attracted Americans to the real estate mogul in the first place. Research suggests such voters are driven by a combination of racial resentment and authoritarianism. Sociologist David Norman Smith cited both in a just-published paper, in which he argues hardcore Trump supporters "target minorities and women" and "favor domineering and intolerant leaders who are uninhibited about their biases." And yet, there's something puzzling about that equation. If authoritarians, by definition, revere authority, why would they support an anti-establishment candidate like Trump? And why are they OK with his administration slandering bedrock American institutions as the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A second recently published study provides an answer: There are different strains of authoritarian thinking. And support for Trump is associated with what is arguably the most toxic type: authoritarian aggression. The study suggests the bulk of his supporters, at least in the Republican primaries, were not old-fashioned conservatives who preach obedience and respect for authority. Rather, they were people who take a belligerent, combative approach toward people they find threatening. The notion that there are different types of authoritarians was proposed in the 1980s by University of Manitoba psychologist Robert Altemeyer, and refined in 2010 by a research team led by John Duckitt of the University of Auckland. In the journal Political Psychology, that team defined right-wing authoritarianism as "a set of three related ideological attitude dimensions." They are: "Conventionalism," a.k.a. "traditionalism," which is defined as "favoring traditional, old-fashioned social norms, values, and morality." Authoritarian submission," defined as "favoring uncritical, respectful, obedient, submissive support for existing authorities and institutions." "Authoritarian aggression," defined as "favoring the use of strict, tough, harsh, punitive, coercive social control." Duckitt and his colleagues created a survey designed to measure each of these three facets. It was measured by participants' responses to statements such as "The old-fashioned ways, and old-fashioned values, still show the best way to live" (traditionalism); "Our country would be great if we show respect for authority and obey our leaders" (submission); and "The way things are going in this country, it's going to take a lot of 'strong medicine' to straighten out the troublemakers, criminals, and perverts" (aggression). A research team led by psychologist Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark used those scales to try to tease out why some studies link Trump support to authoritarianism, while others do not. It discovered the problem with the latter is they tend to either heavily or exclusively focus on the "submission" dimension, which has traditionally been studied in the context of child-rearing (as in, "Do you expect your children to unquestioningly obey their elders?"). As it turns out, that's the facet of authoritarianism that has the least to do with support for Trump. Ludeke's study, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, featured 1,444 participants recruited online in April of 2016. They responded to 18 authoritarianism-focused statements?six for each facet?and indicated who, among the presidential candidates remaining in the race at that point, they supported. "Consistent with Trump's representation of the world as a dangerous place requiring harsh treatment of deviant minorities," they write, "Trump supporters were high on authoritarian aggression." Strong support for conventionalism/traditionalism was also linked to support for Trump, but high scores on the submission category?that is, respect for authority, and obedience to superiors?was not. THE EMOTIONAL ROOTS OF POLITICAL POLARIZATION: New research argues feelings of disillusionment prompt people to take more extreme positions. Smith's analysis of data from the American National Election Study reaches a similar conclusion. He reports "enthusiastic Trump voters are also enthusiastic about domineering leaders, and that they are not especially enthusiastic about respectful children." Authoritarianism in the Trump era "is not the wish to follow any and every authority but, rather, the wish to support a strong and determined authority who will 'crush evil and take us back to our true path,'" Smith and his co-author, Eric Hanley, conclude. Participants in Ludeke's study also completed surveys measuring Social Dominance Orientation?the belief that one group has the right to dominate others. Replicating previous research, they found this philosophy, which often accompanies authoritarianism, correlated with support for Trump. So the very things a majority of Americans find disconcerting, if not disqualifying, about Trump?his need to dominate, his thinly veiled white supremacism, and his blunt, bullying language?is precisely what appeals to his hardcore fans. They are very likely stand to by their man, whatever scandals might emerge. That said, these results suggest Democrats have a decent chance of peeling away a different slice of the Republican-leaning electorate?if they can defend liberal policies while embodying a more traditional respect for authority. Those "submission"-oriented voters don't have a natural affinity for Trump. They may prefer candidates who embody a traditional sense of dignity?people they can feel comfortable looking up to. That possibility aside, the picture painted in both of these studies is pretty bleak from a progressive perspective. Smith's paper, the lead article in the March 2018 issue of Critical Sociology, concludes this way: Most Trump voters cast their ballots for him with their eyes open, not despite his prejudices but because of them. Their partisanship, whether positive (toward Trump and the Republicans) or negative (against Clinton and the Democrats), is intense. This partisanship is anchored in anger and resentment among mild as well as strong Trump voters. Anger, not fear, was the emotional key to the Tea Party, and that seems to be true for Trumpism as well. If so, the challenge for progressives is greater than many people have imagined. Hostility to minorities and women cannot be wished away; nor can the wish for domineering leaders. > Tom Jacobs is a senior staff writer at Pacific Standard, where he specializes in social science, culture, and learning. He is a veteran journalist and former staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Apr 7 03:27:54 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:27:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore's reeducation on the Democratic Party and what passes for "progressive" media In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10ade543-681c-9b68-0990-814e4e6b6a87@forestfield.org> I wrote: > I know that some of you find Jimmy Dore's language hard to hear, but I encourage you > to consider looking up Sanders' Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/berniesanders) and > following along at least with some of what Dore has to say. You won't find coverage > of these issues in many places or offered in a such a timely way (and that's a > continuing shame of the so-called "progressive" media, particularly shows like > Democracy Now that continue on with paid staff, professional editing equipment, and > operating budgets). I don't find Dore's language tough to take, I find it interesting > that he is slowly coming around to realizing that perhaps he was too easy on Rep. > Tulsi Gabbard all along (he currently says he's "going scorched earth" on her because > she's a member of a set of Democrats who are "feckless"), and that Sen. Bernie > Sanders never ran to win (not in 2016 and not now). I think some more realizations are coming around for Jimmy Dore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHcyfyx0eEw -- titled "Trump shows Bernie how to win a presidential election" gets to what Bruce Dixon wrote about years ago in https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb3RqkP1TpQ -- titled "Progressive media starts criticizing AOC & Bernie" furthers this with more critical media viewing, this time watching The Hill's talk show "Rising" in which the hosts eventually undermine their own narrative. The Hill recently ran https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B9ZCKYlnts entitled "Krystal Ball: Bernie shouldn't drop out until establishment feels pain". Ball argues that there is no leverage awaiting Sanders if he drops out now. But Sanders will never bring pain to the establishment. That's a big problem with Bernie Sanders' campaigns. The irony is that Sanders would later hand Krystal Ball the reasons why it doesn't matter if he bows out of the race. Consider the following quote from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B9ZCKYlnts > Krystal Ball: [...] and every day that Bernie stays in the race over the > increasing howls of protest and the media and the Democratic establishment that > pain will start to build. Right now his presence is basically a simple annoyance > for the establishment, but as the weeks roll by, and Biden continues to flail as > Bernie is able to confidently offer broad reaching plans, makes what is by now a > completely obvious case for Medicare for All, and is shockingly able to coherently > articulate a plan without reading from notes, that annoyance is going to turn to > angst, and then to terror. Sanders recently announced a "Bold 6-Point Program For Tackling the Coronavirus Crisis"[1] in which he articulated the following: > Let me be clear: I am not proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. > That fight continues into the future. and Sanders released a video[2] in which he said "This is not Medicare for All, we can?t pass that right now." around 41m44s into the recording. [1] https://indypendent.org/2020/04/bernie-sanders-heres-my-bold-6-point-program-for-tackling-the-coronavirus-crisis/ or https://archive.md/mdAKW [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQV83U5Dk From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 09:07:34 2020 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 04:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stay in the race Bernie Sanders. America needs you now more than ever Message-ID: *Stay in the race Bernie Sanders. America needs you now more than ever* By Alan Minsky, Executive Director | Progressive Democrats of America Progressive Democrats of America calls upon Senator Bernie Sanders to continue his presidential campaign until the end of the 2020 primary season. We understand that many Democrats are calling for Bernie to drop out. They say that Joe Biden is so far ahead that the time has come for party unity, for focusing on Donald Trump. While we agree about the necessity of defeating Donald Trump, we arrive at the opposite conclusion: The Democratic Party, and all Americans, will benefit from Bernie continuing his campaign in this historic moment. The severity of the COVID-19 national emergency has changed everything in this election year. Coronavirus has revealed, with tragic consequences, the failings of our public health institutions and economic safety net ? in ways that Bernie Sanders has been warning against for decades. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Bernie?s platform directly addresses these failings; in marked contrast to his rival?s. As many observers have noted, with each passing day the COVID-19 pandemic is proving the wisdom of the Sanders agenda. Full text: https://pdamerica.org/stay-in-the-race-bernie-sanders-america-needs-you-now-more-than-ever/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue Apr 7 19:52:02 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:52:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Will COVID-19 Remake the World? Message-ID: Construing a huge ambiguous inkblot by self-caricature ? Will COVID-19 Remake the World? Project Syndicate, Apr 6, 2020 ? DANI RODRIK [ Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University?s John F. Kennedy School of Government, is the author of Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy. ] No one should expect the pandemic to alter ? much less reverse ? tendencies that were evident before the crisis. Neoliberalism will continue its slow death, populist autocrats will become even more authoritarian, and the left will continue to struggle to devise a program that appeals to a majority of voters. CAMBRIDGE ? Crises come in two variants: those for which we could not have prepared, because no one had anticipated them, and those for which we should have been prepared, because they were in fact expected. COVID-19 is in the latter category, no matter what US President Donald Trump says to avoid responsibility for the unfolding catastrophe. Even though the coronavirus itself is new and the timing of the current outbreak could not have been predicted, it was well recognized by experts that a pandemic of this type was likely. . . . Momentous events such as the current crisis engender their own ?confirmation bias?: we are likely to see in the COVID-19 debacle an affirmation of our own worldview. And we may perceive incipient signs of a future economic and political order we have long wished for. The pandemic is turning all countries into exaggerated versions of their previous selves . . . [continues] . . . From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue Apr 7 19:52:02 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:52:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Will COVID-19 Remake the World? Message-ID: Construing a huge ambiguous inkblot by self-caricature ? Will COVID-19 Remake the World? Project Syndicate, Apr 6, 2020 ? DANI RODRIK [ Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University?s John F. Kennedy School of Government, is the author of Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy. ] No one should expect the pandemic to alter ? much less reverse ? tendencies that were evident before the crisis. Neoliberalism will continue its slow death, populist autocrats will become even more authoritarian, and the left will continue to struggle to devise a program that appeals to a majority of voters. CAMBRIDGE ? Crises come in two variants: those for which we could not have prepared, because no one had anticipated them, and those for which we should have been prepared, because they were in fact expected. COVID-19 is in the latter category, no matter what US President Donald Trump says to avoid responsibility for the unfolding catastrophe. Even though the coronavirus itself is new and the timing of the current outbreak could not have been predicted, it was well recognized by experts that a pandemic of this type was likely. . . . Momentous events such as the current crisis engender their own ?confirmation bias?: we are likely to see in the COVID-19 debacle an affirmation of our own worldview. And we may perceive incipient signs of a future economic and political order we have long wished for. The pandemic is turning all countries into exaggerated versions of their previous selves . . . [continues] . . . From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Apr 7 22:47:34 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:47:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The establishment is making choices consistent with trying to give you COVID-19 Message-ID: Most US states have told people to stay at home (as the establishment-friendly New York Times put it in https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html > In a matter of weeks, millions of Americans have been asked to do what would have > been unthinkable only a few months ago: Don?t go to work, don?t go to school, > don?t leave the house at all, unless you have to. > > The directives to keep people at home, which began in California in mid-March, > have quickly swept the nation. Today, a vast majority of states, the Navajo Nation > and many cities and counties have instructed residents to stay at home in a > desperate race to stunt the spread of the coronavirus. > > This means at least 316 million people in at least 42 states, three counties, nine > cities, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are being urged to stay home. Insufficiently critical (generously labeled "schizophrenic" by Jimmy Dore around 16 minutes into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qg-uxr9ARs ) media outlet Democracy Now interviewed Bishop Clifton Daniel about still holding religious services: > AMY GOODMAN: And what is your message to fellow clergy who are insisting on > keeping their houses of worship open? > > BISHOP CLIFTON DANIEL: I disagree with you completely. I think you?re making a bad > decision and a wrong decision, that you?re serving some need other than the needs > of the people. And before he became such a high-profile COVID-19 victim, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson previously boasted: > Prime Minister Boris Johnson: I am shaking hands continuously. I was at a ? I was > at a hospital the other night where I think there were a few ? there were actually > a few coronavirus patients. And I shook hands with everybody, you?ll be pleased to > know, and I continue to shake hands. According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BheoJjPFDxg PM Johnson is now on a CPAP machine and now the UK government admits Johnson is in intensive care. 5 hours prior to admitting that the UK government said that Johnson on a ventilator was "Russian disinformation" per George Galloway in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqhZsGgeUsw and https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-hospital-persistent-coronavirus-symptoms-russia-ventilator-disinformation-covid-2020-4 and https://archive.md/2oeyB: > The UK government has accused Russia of spreading "disinformation" after the > country's state media reported that Prime Minister Boris Johnson was being treated > on a ventilator for the coronavirus. > > Johnson was admitted to hospital on Sunday after experiencing "persistent > symptoms" of the coronavirus. > > His spokesman confirmed on Monday that the prime minister was admitted to St > Thomas Hospital in London after continuing to experience a high temperature and a > cough ten days after first testing positive for the virus. > > However, he described Russian state media reports that he is on a ventilator for > the condition as "disinformation." > > "That is disinformation," his spokesman said. > > "Our specialist government units have seen a rise in false reports since the > coronavirus outbreak started. It's vital that any information is knocked down > quickly." > > He added that it was "vital to ensure that we press social media companies for > further action to stop the spread of disinformation." Given that backdrop, what's the good word from the Democratic Party? The DNC corporation continues its standards bearer selection event across the country, now with backing from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Presumptive DNC nominee Joe Biden recently endorsed voting in the DNC corporation event (when it was Florida, Arizona & Illinois' turn). Now the Wisconsin State Supreme Court has overridden Governor Tony Evers' executive order to push the so-called election date to June. A 5-4 vote quashed Evers' executive order which attempted to delay the event. So now the event calendar goes back to what it was before. And Wisconsin is reducing the number of polling stations as well which seems likely to further increase the odds of contracting COVID-19 from or giving COVID-19 to someone at the polls. Locally, polling stations are often run by retirees -- older people who, we're told, are at high risk for adverse outcomes (including death) should they be exposed to COVID-19. For their sake, one hopes everyone running the polls in Wisconsin will strike lest they have to do as Hillary Clinton suggested and purchase healthcare from the Obamacare "exchanges"(per https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1245735705499836416 which reads "Millions of people have lost their employer-tied health care over the last two weeks because of the pandemic. It's an easy call: Re-open the health care exchanges."). Relatedly, 40% of Americans can't afford a $400 emergency (https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/emergency-expenses-household-finances/index.html). So I'm sure HRC will be glad to point you all to sub-$400 Obamacare exchange healthcare that will properly address all of your real-world healthcare needs. Oh yes, and Spain is saying they'll have a universal basic income set up "as soon as possible" and plans to make their UBI "remain forever" (https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/other/spain-is-moving-to-permanently-establish-universal-basic-income-in-the-wake-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/ar-BB12esQR?li=AAFsTE5 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGlTzdNKGH4). From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Apr 8 01:09:50 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 01:09:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Keywords 040720 Message-ID: Keywords 040720 An occasional reminder of terms sometimes useful in political analysis & polemics charlatan, Schadenfreude, neurosis, myth, nonsense CHARLATAN (sh?r?l?-t?n) n. > A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud. [French, from Italian ciarlatano, probably alteration (influenced by ciarlare, to prattle) of cerretano, inhabitant of Cerreto, a city of Italy once famous for its quacks.] ? American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language > someone who professes knowledge or expertise, esp in medicine, that he or she does not have; quack [C17: from French, from Italian ciarlatano, from ciarlare to chatter] ? Collins English Dictionarychar?la?tan (???r l? tn) > n. a person who pretends to special knowledge or skill that he or she does not possess; quack; fraud. [1595?1605; < Middle French < Italian ciarlatano, b. ciarlatore chatterer and cerretano hawker, quack, literally, native of Cerreto a village in Umbria] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary SCHADENFREUDE (sh?d?n-froi?d?) n. > Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. ? American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language > n delight in another's misfortune [German: from Schaden harm + Freude joy] ? Collins English Dictionary > n. pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune. [1890?95; < German, =Schaden harm + Freude joy] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary > A German word meaning harm joy, used to mean pleasure taken at the misfortunes of someone else. ? Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words by Diagram Group // The guilty pleasure whose time has come > In the past two decades _schadenfreude_, a German word that means (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) ?malicious enjoyment of the misfortunes of others,? has gained popularity in the English-speaking world. Google?s graph for word usage shows a steep upward curve for schadenfreude during the first decade of the 21st century. ? Stephen Miller [No, not the Trump advisor], Weekly Standard, 12/24/18 > Brief homemade definitions by RSz. + NEUROSIS : a persistent tendency to engage in futile or self-defeating behavior + MYTH: something believed by two or more other people, but not by me + NONSENSE : in the local vernacular, any political or religious opinion that I dislike, disagree with & sneer at. (cf. lie, garbage, hysterics, bullshit, fake news, etc.) # # # ? From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Apr 8 01:09:50 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 01:09:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Keywords 040720 Message-ID: Keywords 040720 An occasional reminder of terms sometimes useful in political analysis & polemics charlatan, Schadenfreude, neurosis, myth, nonsense CHARLATAN (sh?r?l?-t?n) n. > A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud. [French, from Italian ciarlatano, probably alteration (influenced by ciarlare, to prattle) of cerretano, inhabitant of Cerreto, a city of Italy once famous for its quacks.] ? American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language > someone who professes knowledge or expertise, esp in medicine, that he or she does not have; quack [C17: from French, from Italian ciarlatano, from ciarlare to chatter] ? Collins English Dictionarychar?la?tan (???r l? tn) > n. a person who pretends to special knowledge or skill that he or she does not possess; quack; fraud. [1595?1605; < Middle French < Italian ciarlatano, b. ciarlatore chatterer and cerretano hawker, quack, literally, native of Cerreto a village in Umbria] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary SCHADENFREUDE (sh?d?n-froi?d?) n. > Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. ? American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language > n delight in another's misfortune [German: from Schaden harm + Freude joy] ? Collins English Dictionary > n. pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune. [1890?95; < German, =Schaden harm + Freude joy] ? Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary > A German word meaning harm joy, used to mean pleasure taken at the misfortunes of someone else. ? Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words by Diagram Group // The guilty pleasure whose time has come > In the past two decades _schadenfreude_, a German word that means (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) ?malicious enjoyment of the misfortunes of others,? has gained popularity in the English-speaking world. Google?s graph for word usage shows a steep upward curve for schadenfreude during the first decade of the 21st century. ? Stephen Miller [No, not the Trump advisor], Weekly Standard, 12/24/18 > Brief homemade definitions by RSz. + NEUROSIS : a persistent tendency to engage in futile or self-defeating behavior + MYTH: something believed by two or more other people, but not by me + NONSENSE : in the local vernacular, any political or religious opinion that I dislike, disagree with & sneer at. (cf. lie, garbage, hysterics, bullshit, fake news, etc.) # # # ? From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Apr 8 15:20:50 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:20:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting articles Message-ID: <158B6878-CFB6-4D2F-90BF-DC2159A050E9@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.unz.com/ishamir/fighting-the-worldwide-war-on-death/ https://consentfactory.org/2020/03/26/the-war-on-death/ https://www.thetablet.co.uk/features/2/17845/pope-francis-says-pandemic-can-be-a-place-of-conversion- From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Apr 8 22:07:29 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:07:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bernie Sanders never needed your vote because he wasn't running to win In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6483b27f-51e8-2d16-b04d-510c360dc037@forestfield.org> Debra Schrishuhn quoted PDAmerica.org which wrote: > *Stay in the race Bernie Sanders. America needs you now more than ever* Apparently Bernie Sanders doesn't agree with the Progressive Democrats of America (PDAmerica.org). America never needed his 2 most recent presidential campaigns but the Dems found them useful. I can't call them failed presidential campaigns because I think that Bruce Dixon got it right years ago[1], Sanders is a Democratic Party sheepdog: he succeeded at his real goal of drawing people into the Democratic Party and leaving them at the hands of powerful people who do not share their policy goals. We've got footage of Sanders endorsing neolib/neocon Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race. Eventually we'll get footage of Sanders more explicitly endorsing neolib/neocon Joe Biden in the 2020 race. Only a formality remains; Sanders has again repeated his mantra "Joe Biden is a very decent man" as he dropped out[3]. Even Jimmy Dore (who bought Tulsi Gabbard's "anti-war" shtick) came around to seeing that the Democrats are feckless and Sanders never ran to win[2]. And we all know how Gabbard's political career went: she joined the Democrats in endorsing Biden (perhaps another disaffected former Sanders supporter) and said "Although I may not agree with the Vice President on every issue, I know that he has a good heart and is motivated by his love for our country and the American people. I?m confident that he will lead our country guided by the spirit of aloha ? respect and compassion ? and thus help heal the divisiveness that has been tearing our country apart.". Her political swan song really went the extra PR mile to distract attention away from the reality of Biden's record. In his end-of-campaign video Sanders also called for "assembling as many delegates as possible at the Democratic convention where we will be able to exert significant influence over the party platform and other functions". But everyone knows that the party platform is meaningless and nobody knows what these "other functions" are but they probably don't matter either because Sanders doesn't have any leverage to wield. Are the Democrats really going to hold an in-person Democratic Party convention in Milwaukee on August 17? That choice would be consistent with the contempt for human health and safety Biden showed when he called for the public to participate in the DNC corporation selections (so-called "elections" but we all know that party bosses control the outcome and the rest is political theater). PDAmerica.org wrote: > We understand that many Democrats are calling for Bernie to drop out. They > say that Joe Biden is so far ahead that the time has come for party unity, > for focusing on Donald Trump. While we agree about the necessity of > defeating Donald Trump, we arrive at the opposite conclusion: The > Democratic Party, and all Americans, will benefit from Bernie continuing > his campaign in this historic moment. Anyone who calls for "the necessity of defeating Donald Trump" (said as euphemistically as Democrats endorsed 'voting for a woman' in 2016) -- meaning, with the Democrat Joe Biden -- is siding with the neocons and neolibs. If the pattern holds, next comes the Democratic Party message shift to keeping progressives at bay with variations on "how dare you run against Joe Biden!". Wouldn't it be better for the people if the Democrats dropped out since they represent the same major interests as the Republicans and apparently oppose what's good for the American public? [1] https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YUYRHrFODU around 22 minutes. [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DSAmRwL5pM around 7m17s. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Apr 9 18:58:29 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:58:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Biden-Linked Firm Tests Messages to Undercut 'Medicare for All' Message-ID: <008b01d60ea0$dc3ed5b0$94bc8110$@comcast.net> Bloomberg Biden-Linked Firm Tests Messages to Undercut 'Medicare for All' By Sahil Kapur September 23, 2019, 12:35 PM CDT Updated on September 23, 2019, 4:18 PM CDT A new poll by a firm linked to Joe Biden is testing messages designed to undercut support among Democrats for Medicare for All, one of the most contentious issues splitting the party's top presidential contenders. The survey, commissioned by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, found that primary voters start off favoring the government-run health care system by a margin of 70% to 21%, but can be persuaded to oppose it. The study showed that Democrats are most swayed by the arguments that the program would impose a heavy cost on taxpayers and threaten Medicare for senior citizens. The poll was conducted by Lisa Grove of Anzalone Liszt Grove Research. Her partner, John Anzalone, is the chief pollster and an adviser to Biden, who opposes Medicare for All and wants to make government-run insurance optional. Biden's main rivals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, support Medicare for All, which would eliminate private insurance and create a system modeled on Medicare that automatically covers all Americans. Sanders took aim at the survey and some of the arguments it is designed to test. "It is unfortunate but not surprising that Vice President Biden's polling firm is helping distort what Medicare for All is about," he said in a statement. Any tax increases would be used to eliminate costs for people seeking health care, Sanders said. The survey found that Democrats are most swayed to oppose Medicare for All when told it would cost American taxpayers $3.2 trillion per year: 51% of Democratic primary voters said they found that argument convincing, while 43% said they did not. The poll also found that 51% of Democratic voters said the argument that it would "end Medicare as we know it" was convincing, while 53% said the claim that it would lower quality of care for seniors was convincing. And 51% said the argument that Medicare for All could expand wait times and limit access to medical specialists was convincing. Sanders, the author of a Medicare for All bill pending in Congress, has been upfront about the high cost but he and Warren have both argued that most Americans would come out financially ahead because their health care costs would drop. They argue that a single insurance plan would be the most cost-effective way to care for all Americans, while allowing everyone to see their provider of choice. Notably, Democratic voters in the ALG Research survey were less swayed by the fear of losing private employer-based coverage - 45% said that argument was convincing while 49% said it was not. The study conducted last month surveyed 813 Democratic primary voters in the election as part of an overall sample of 1,800 likely voters. It found that most general election voters also start off favoring Medicare for All but that support diminishes once they hear arguments against it. Jim Kessler, Third Way's executive vice president for policy, said the poll shows that President Donald "Trump is deeply underwater on health care and the only lifeline that could pull him to shore is Medicare for All." The messages tested in the poll echo arguments made by Republicans against Medicare for All. Democrats are split on whether the proposal would be a liability in a general election or whether it would boost the party's hopes of defeating Trump by galvanizing voters. The survey also tested positive messages for Medicare for All. It showed that 78% of Democrats were swayed by the argument that the U.S. should join the rest of the world in making health care a right. In addition, 70% of primary voters were swayed by the argument that Medicare for All would get rid of out-of-pocket costs for anyone seeking care. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Apr 10 01:38:36 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:38:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Biden-Linked Firm Tests Messages to Undercut 'Medicare for All' In-Reply-To: <008b01d60ea0$dc3ed5b0$94bc8110$@comcast.net> References: <008b01d60ea0$dc3ed5b0$94bc8110$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <9ac27884-e852-2e0a-efde-344a0b416850@forestfield.org> David Johnson quoted https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/biden-linked-firm-tests-messages-to-undercut-medicare-for-all published on September 23, 2019: > A new poll by a firm linked to Joe Biden is testing messages designed to > undercut support among Democrats for Medicare for All, one of the most > contentious issues splitting the party's top presidential contenders. > > [...] > > Biden's main rivals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, support Medicare > for All, which would eliminate private insurance and create a system modeled > on Medicare that automatically covers all Americans. Oh, how things have changed. Medicare for All is not "splitting the party's top presidential contenders" anymore. Sanders very clearly dropped his support for Medicare for All, saying: Around 41m44s into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0uQV83U5Dk > This is not Medicare for All, we can?t pass that right now. and https://archive.md/mdAKW > Let me be clear: I am not proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. > That fight continues into the future. as he ended his 2020 campaign. Therefore before Sanders dropped out the top Democratic contenders agreed -- they all rejected Medicare for All. Now he tells us he won't work for Medicare for All either. Responding to the latter of Sanders' quotes above: We have no idea when "the future" comes for Sanders, and therefore his statements read like so many other Democrats who say universal single-payer health care is something to reach for (but apparently never achieve). > Sanders took aim at the survey and some of the arguments it is designed to > test. "It is unfortunate but not surprising that Vice President Biden's > polling firm is helping distort what Medicare for All is about," he said in > a statement. Any tax increases would be used to eliminate costs for people > seeking health care, Sanders said. So Sanders understands what Medicare for All is about, and Sanders understands that Biden's firm is paid to work against Medicare for All. But Sanders did not say that he supported Medicare for All. Meanwhile, according to https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/secretary/speeches/2020-speeches/remarks-white-house-coronavirus-press-briefing-4-03-20.html > We are already rolling out $1 billion in funding from the Families First > Coronavirus Response Act to cover providers? expenses for testing and diagnosing > the uninsured. > > The CARES Act signed by the President includes another $100 billion for healthcare > providers. > > Under the President?s direction, we will use a portion of that funding to cover > providers? costs of delivering COVID-19 care for the uninsured, sending the money > to providers through the same mechanism used for testing. > > As a condition of receiving funds under this program, providers will be forbidden > from balance billing the uninsured for the cost of their care. Providers will be > reimbursed at Medicare rates. > > We will soon have more specifics on how the rest of the $100 billion will go to > providers. We should expect to have available a small part of the very thing Sanders won't pursue writ large now, and what Biden outright rejects. From carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Apr 10 01:50:16 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bernie's Last tape - CounterPunch.org Message-ID: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/04/09/bernies-last-tape/ From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Apr 11 03:14:56 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 22:14:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Notes (COVID-19 edition) Message-ID: <8e2eeee0-f9a9-b888-ac05-00de51da4be4@forestfield.org> So many of the stories not covered elsewhere are now covered by Jimmy Dore & RT. Dore is particularly good on covering stories about workers, such as pointing out that the workers deemed essential (note how this is not the upper-level workers such as management) also the least-well paid and the most at-risk from contracting and spreading COVID-19. This particular point is brought up on RT's CrossTalk (below) as well in what is probably one of their best episodes. Assange missing from hearing, reported to be "unwell" and still trapped in COVID-19 prison/petri dish Consortium News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccGRIuA5SU -- interview with Deepa Govindarajan Driver who was in the courtroom for the hearing. Related: Galloway on Coronavirus "ripping" through Belmarsh prison. RT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DT2oDnHc9I Almost 1/3rd of US renters didn't pay their rent on time on April 1, 2020. Jimmy Dore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASwpV-nfJu8 pay-rent-by-april-fifth-20200408-iqpwwtzr35cmrliiwnvs2qlasm-story.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/nearly-a-third-of-u-s-renters-didnt-pay-april-rent-11586340000 https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-nearly-third-renters-did-not- > A national landlord group has found that nearly a third of U.S. renters didn?t pay > any of their rent in the first week of April, a stark sign of how much American > families are struggling economically during the coronavirus pandemic. > > Only 69% of households had paid their rent by April 5, down from 81% that had paid > by March 5 and 82% that did so by April 5, 2019, according to data collected by > the National Multifamily Housing Council. > > The group?s rent payment tracker reflects data from 13.4 million units across the > country and includes renters who only made partial payments. > > The percentage of payments is likely to grow, however, as many renters are > expected to pay their rent later in the month or made online payments that weren?t > processed by April 5. > > Still, the drop in payments during the first five days of the month suggests many > renters are struggling to keep up with their bills as businesses across the > country shut their doors to slow the spread of coronavirus, which has already > killed about 13,000 people in the U.S. > > ?The COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in significant health and financial challenges > for apartment residents and multifamily owners, operators and employees in > communities across the country,? Doug Bibby, the council?s president, said in a > statement Wednesday. > > ?However, it is important to note that a large number of residents met their > obligations despite unparalleled circumstances, and we will see that figure > increase over the coming weeks,? he added. CrossTalk with 2 guests who challenge capitalism, 1 who defends capitalism and gives up on the show part of the way in. RT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nggh-tqIjU John Pilger interview in "Underground" season-ender (the show is coming back for another season) RT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HupV6GRPLw McDonald's workers are striking in multiple cities (keep in mind how McDonald's treats their workers when COVID-19 stay-at-home order is over) Jimmy Dore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKoXPOU5xHc Matt Taibbi on how this bailout is worse than the 2008 bailout The Hill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqcpipS2yvI I recommend that UPTV replay all of these videos. I understand that they still won't play the Jimmy Dore episodes because we might hear Jimmy say naughty words. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Apr 11 13:24:45 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 08:24:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] National Health Care Day of Action April 15 Message-ID: <001801d61004$91ec89c0$b5c59d40$@comcast.net> Labor Notes Please Join: National Health Care Day of Action April 15 April 09, 2020 / Chris Brooks Nurse engaged in activity in laboratory A national network of rank-and-file activists from nurses' unions is organizing a National Day of Action on Tax Day, April 15. Photo: Vladimir Morozov, CC BY-SA 2.0, cropped from original. A national network of rank-and-file activists from New York State Nurses Association, Michigan Nurses Association, Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals (PASNAP), Service Employees 1021, National Nurses United Chicago, and other nurse unions is organizing a National Day of Action on Tax Day, April 15. Health care workers are encouraged to participate by taking on the actions below-or come up with your own ideas. Be creative! Other unions should contact local nurses unions to see how you can help. Please let us know your plans by contacting Chris Brooks at chris at labornotes.org. Share your action, before and after, on social media with the hashtag #THESYSTEMISBROKEN. NATIONAL HEALTH CARE DAY OF ACTION ON TAX DAY, APRIL 15 TELL THE WORLD: #THESYSTEMISBROKEN We are health care workers on the front lines of the pandemic. Please support our National Day of Action on Tax Day, April 15, to tell the world that #TheSystemIsBroken and demand that we reorganize the U.S. health care system to prioritize the interests of patients over those of billionaires and corporations. Our private, for-profit health care system has left us with a deep scarcity of resources and properly trained health care workers. We are not heroes and we did not enlist to die in our jobs due to government inaction and corporate greed. The pandemic has clearly exposed why critical infrastructure, including our country's health care, cannot be left to the market. The mass graves being dug for tomorrow are made deeper by the political choices made today. We call for the U.S. health care system to be treated like road maintenance, garbage disposal, education, fire protection, and any other vital component of our social infrastructure. The entire system, from the production of drugs and medical supplies to hospitals and health clinics, should be nationalized and publicly administered on behalf of our communities rather than privately owned and operated for the benefit of billionaires and corporations. Faced with a lack of gloves, masks, beds and staff, both Spain and Ireland have nationalized their health care systems to better coordinate the distribution of critical resources. Our government must put patients over profits by directing and coordinating the manufacture and distribution of vital medical resources and guaranteeing that everyone is provided the quality health care they need with Medicare for All. EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS YOUR GROUPS CAN TAKE: * At Jacobi hospital in New York City, nurses organized a short rally and press conference after their shift ended. They placed protest signs on the ground six feet apart and had everyone go one at a time to pick them up. They then went one by one to the microphone to speak to the press. * PASNAP (Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals) has created a Hospital Response Report Card. Union members assessed each of their hospitals along seven areas of concern during the pandemic. At union-organized press conferences, these report cards are updated regularly to keep the public informed about the state of issues in each facility. * Nurses in a Massachusetts hospital organized a gown-making party, where they all got 39-gallon trash bags and practiced turning them into a protective covering so that they have a "backup plan for when we actually run out of gowns." They took photos and shared on social media. * Nurses at Mount Sinai hospital in New York City organized a press conference outside the hospital, holding the photographs of coworkers who had died of COVID-19 after not being provided the PPE they needed. They held signs saying "We won't be your body bags." * Nurses at Provident Hospital were given 2 days notice that their South Side Chicago ER was going to be closed for a month. This pandemic is wrecking havoc upon African-Americans in particular, so they immediately went into action. They have held a protest, released a video, and started a petition. * Nurses in Buffalo, New York organized a car rally to draw attention to their demand that the U.S. government use the Defense Production Act to produce more PPE. They plastered signs all over their cars and drove around Niagara Square honking their horns. They then held a press conference, which was also livestreamed on Facebook. * Health care workers at Harlem Hospital organized a press conference, using a rope with knots in it every six feet to ensure distancing. Nurses then went one at a time to a microphone to share their stories. OUR DEMANDS EXPLAINED https://labornotes.org/sites/default/files/bullseye2.jpg We demand that every health care worker be provided the PPE they need to keep themselves, their families, and their patients safe: #PPEoverProfits. Using the Defense Production Act, we can use our country's manufacturing capacity to make gowns, N-95 masks, and ventilators. It is not enough for some private companies to voluntarily begin manufacturing the resources we need. We need the government to mandate that companies begin producing them and that we produce a surplus not only for the United States but for all the other countries that face a scarcity. We need coordination of resources, not competition. Hospital systems and states should not be in competition with one another for supplies. Nobody should be afraid of not getting the care they need because of where they live or because their hospital is not at the front of the line for ventilators. We need a system for distributing PPE and other supplies based on need rather than who has the deepest pockets or favorable political connections. We know that the disease strikes particular regions before others. For example, New York City is hit hard now. Rather than states stockpiling resources and waiting their turn, those resources should be sent to where they are needed. It is essential that frontline workers and their unions be at the table with state and federal government officials to ensure that resources are distributed to the hospitals and areas that need it most, when they need it. We demand mandatory safe staffing in every hospital. Health care workers are being assigned far more high-acuity patients than they can safely care for. Health care workers at Detroit's Sinai-Grace Hospital, for example, have sometimes had as few as two nurses caring for 26 patients on 10 ventilators. These courageous workers staged a work stoppage on April 6 to alert the public to the dire situation. Frontline workers should be running the staffing offices and determining the staffing levels appropriate in our workplaces. We must train nurses now. Due to lack of PPE and a big drop in lucrative elective procedures, many hospitals across the country are laying off nurses and other staff at the exact moment we should be training them and preparing them to provide critical care to highly infectious patients. Nurses cannot be expected to give critical care without proper training. Child care for health care workers. Daycares and schools have made the appropriate decision to close, but this has left health care workers, who are often working long hours for many days in a row, with the challenge of finding others who will risk exposing themselves to the virus by watching their children. This is not a personal problem, but a social issue to be addressed by the government and our employers with free, universal child care for health care workers. House health care workers in union hotels to protect their families. Due to the lack of testing and PPE, every time health care workers go home to their families they risk exposing them to the virus. Medicare for All. With layoffs skyrocketing, millions of people are left without insurance for themselves and their families. No one who seeks the medical care they need and deserve in this moment should be left with a bill. Hospitals should not be making decisions to cut costs in fear of the impending budget crunch they will face. The solution is simple and clear: we need a single-payer system and we need it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 172737 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8339 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Apr 11 13:24:45 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 08:24:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] National Health Care Day of Action April 15 Message-ID: <001801d61004$91ec89c0$b5c59d40$@comcast.net> Labor Notes Please Join: National Health Care Day of Action April 15 April 09, 2020 / Chris Brooks Nurse engaged in activity in laboratory A national network of rank-and-file activists from nurses' unions is organizing a National Day of Action on Tax Day, April 15. Photo: Vladimir Morozov, CC BY-SA 2.0, cropped from original. A national network of rank-and-file activists from New York State Nurses Association, Michigan Nurses Association, Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals (PASNAP), Service Employees 1021, National Nurses United Chicago, and other nurse unions is organizing a National Day of Action on Tax Day, April 15. Health care workers are encouraged to participate by taking on the actions below-or come up with your own ideas. Be creative! Other unions should contact local nurses unions to see how you can help. Please let us know your plans by contacting Chris Brooks at chris at labornotes.org. Share your action, before and after, on social media with the hashtag #THESYSTEMISBROKEN. NATIONAL HEALTH CARE DAY OF ACTION ON TAX DAY, APRIL 15 TELL THE WORLD: #THESYSTEMISBROKEN We are health care workers on the front lines of the pandemic. Please support our National Day of Action on Tax Day, April 15, to tell the world that #TheSystemIsBroken and demand that we reorganize the U.S. health care system to prioritize the interests of patients over those of billionaires and corporations. Our private, for-profit health care system has left us with a deep scarcity of resources and properly trained health care workers. We are not heroes and we did not enlist to die in our jobs due to government inaction and corporate greed. The pandemic has clearly exposed why critical infrastructure, including our country's health care, cannot be left to the market. The mass graves being dug for tomorrow are made deeper by the political choices made today. We call for the U.S. health care system to be treated like road maintenance, garbage disposal, education, fire protection, and any other vital component of our social infrastructure. The entire system, from the production of drugs and medical supplies to hospitals and health clinics, should be nationalized and publicly administered on behalf of our communities rather than privately owned and operated for the benefit of billionaires and corporations. Faced with a lack of gloves, masks, beds and staff, both Spain and Ireland have nationalized their health care systems to better coordinate the distribution of critical resources. Our government must put patients over profits by directing and coordinating the manufacture and distribution of vital medical resources and guaranteeing that everyone is provided the quality health care they need with Medicare for All. EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS YOUR GROUPS CAN TAKE: * At Jacobi hospital in New York City, nurses organized a short rally and press conference after their shift ended. They placed protest signs on the ground six feet apart and had everyone go one at a time to pick them up. They then went one by one to the microphone to speak to the press. * PASNAP (Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals) has created a Hospital Response Report Card. Union members assessed each of their hospitals along seven areas of concern during the pandemic. At union-organized press conferences, these report cards are updated regularly to keep the public informed about the state of issues in each facility. * Nurses in a Massachusetts hospital organized a gown-making party, where they all got 39-gallon trash bags and practiced turning them into a protective covering so that they have a "backup plan for when we actually run out of gowns." They took photos and shared on social media. * Nurses at Mount Sinai hospital in New York City organized a press conference outside the hospital, holding the photographs of coworkers who had died of COVID-19 after not being provided the PPE they needed. They held signs saying "We won't be your body bags." * Nurses at Provident Hospital were given 2 days notice that their South Side Chicago ER was going to be closed for a month. This pandemic is wrecking havoc upon African-Americans in particular, so they immediately went into action. They have held a protest, released a video, and started a petition. * Nurses in Buffalo, New York organized a car rally to draw attention to their demand that the U.S. government use the Defense Production Act to produce more PPE. They plastered signs all over their cars and drove around Niagara Square honking their horns. They then held a press conference, which was also livestreamed on Facebook. * Health care workers at Harlem Hospital organized a press conference, using a rope with knots in it every six feet to ensure distancing. Nurses then went one at a time to a microphone to share their stories. OUR DEMANDS EXPLAINED https://labornotes.org/sites/default/files/bullseye2.jpg We demand that every health care worker be provided the PPE they need to keep themselves, their families, and their patients safe: #PPEoverProfits. Using the Defense Production Act, we can use our country's manufacturing capacity to make gowns, N-95 masks, and ventilators. It is not enough for some private companies to voluntarily begin manufacturing the resources we need. We need the government to mandate that companies begin producing them and that we produce a surplus not only for the United States but for all the other countries that face a scarcity. We need coordination of resources, not competition. Hospital systems and states should not be in competition with one another for supplies. Nobody should be afraid of not getting the care they need because of where they live or because their hospital is not at the front of the line for ventilators. We need a system for distributing PPE and other supplies based on need rather than who has the deepest pockets or favorable political connections. We know that the disease strikes particular regions before others. For example, New York City is hit hard now. Rather than states stockpiling resources and waiting their turn, those resources should be sent to where they are needed. It is essential that frontline workers and their unions be at the table with state and federal government officials to ensure that resources are distributed to the hospitals and areas that need it most, when they need it. We demand mandatory safe staffing in every hospital. Health care workers are being assigned far more high-acuity patients than they can safely care for. Health care workers at Detroit's Sinai-Grace Hospital, for example, have sometimes had as few as two nurses caring for 26 patients on 10 ventilators. These courageous workers staged a work stoppage on April 6 to alert the public to the dire situation. Frontline workers should be running the staffing offices and determining the staffing levels appropriate in our workplaces. We must train nurses now. Due to lack of PPE and a big drop in lucrative elective procedures, many hospitals across the country are laying off nurses and other staff at the exact moment we should be training them and preparing them to provide critical care to highly infectious patients. Nurses cannot be expected to give critical care without proper training. Child care for health care workers. Daycares and schools have made the appropriate decision to close, but this has left health care workers, who are often working long hours for many days in a row, with the challenge of finding others who will risk exposing themselves to the virus by watching their children. This is not a personal problem, but a social issue to be addressed by the government and our employers with free, universal child care for health care workers. House health care workers in union hotels to protect their families. Due to the lack of testing and PPE, every time health care workers go home to their families they risk exposing them to the virus. Medicare for All. With layoffs skyrocketing, millions of people are left without insurance for themselves and their families. No one who seeks the medical care they need and deserve in this moment should be left with a bill. Hospitals should not be making decisions to cut costs in fear of the impending budget crunch they will face. The solution is simple and clear: we need a single-payer system and we need it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 172737 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8339 bytes Desc: not available URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Apr 11 19:48:45 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 19:48:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] American democracy dying? Message-ID: American Democracy May Be Dying Authoritarian rule may be just around the corner. By Paul Krugman, Opinion Columnist NYT April 9, 2020 If you aren?t terrified both by Covid-19 and by its economic consequences, you haven?t been paying attention. Even though social distancing may be slowing the disease?s spread, tens of thousands more Americans will surely die in the months ahead (and official accounts surely understate the true death toll). And the economic lockdown necessary to achieve social distancing ? as I?ve been saying, the economy is in the equivalent of a medically induced coma ? has led to almost 17 million new claims for unemployment insurance over the past three weeks, again almost surely an understatement of true job losses. Yet the scariest news of the past week didn?t involve either epidemiology or economics; it was the travesty of an election in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court required that in-person voting proceed despite the health risks and the fact that many who requested absentee ballots never got them. Why was this so scary? Because it shows that America as we know it may not survive much longer. The pandemic will eventually end; the economy will eventually recover. But democracy, once lost, may never come back. And we?re much closer to losing our democracy than many people realize. To see how a modern democracy can die, look at events in Europe, especially Hungary, over the past decade. What happened in Hungary, beginning in 2011, was that Fidesz, the nation?s white nationalist ruling party, took advantage of its position to rig the electoral system, effectively making its rule permanent. Then it further consolidated its control, using political power to reward friendly businesses while punishing critics, and moved to suppress independent news media. Until recently, it seemed as if Viktor Orban, Hungary?s de facto dictator, might stop with soft authoritarianism, presiding over a regime that preserved some of the outward forms of democracy, neutralizing and punishing opposition without actually making criticism illegal. But now his government has used the coronavirus as an excuse to abandon even the pretense of constitutional government, giving Orban the power to rule by decree. If you say that something similar can?t happen here, you?re hopelessly na?ve. In fact, it?s already happening here, especially at the state level. Wisconsin, in particular, is well on its way toward becoming Hungary on Lake Michigan, as Republicans seek a permanent lock on power. The story so far: Back in 2018, Wisconsin?s electorate voted strongly for Democratic control. Voters chose a Democratic governor, and gave 53 percent of their support to Democratic candidates for the State Assembly. But the state is so heavily gerrymandered that despite this popular-vote majority, Democrats got only 36 percent of the Assembly?s seats. And far from trying to reach some accommodation with the governor-elect, Republicans moved to effectively emasculate him, drastically reducing the powers of his office. Then came Tuesday?s election. In normal times most attention would have been focused on the Democratic primary ? although that became a moot point when Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign. But a seat on the State Supreme Court was also at stake. Yet Wisconsin, like most of the country, is under a stay-at-home order. So why did Republican legislators, eventually backed by the Republican appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court, insist on holding an election as if the situation were normal? The answer is that the state shutdown had a much more severe impact on voting in Democratic-leaning urban areas, where a great majority of polling places were closed, than in rural or suburban areas. So the state G.O.P. was nakedly exploiting a pandemic to disenfranchise those likely to vote against it. What we saw in Wisconsin, in short, was a state party doing whatever it takes to cling to power even if a majority of voters want it out ? and a partisan bloc on the Supreme Court backing its efforts. Donald Trump, as usual, said the quiet part out loud: If we expand early voting and voting by mail, ?you?d never have a Republican elected in this country again.? Does anyone seriously doubt that something similar could happen, very soon, at a national level? This November, it?s all too possible that Trump will eke out an Electoral College win thanks to widespread voter suppression. If he does ? or even if he wins cleanly ? everything we?ve seen suggests that he will use a second term to punish everyone he sees as a domestic enemy, and that his party will back him all the way. That is, America will do a full Hungary. What if Trump loses? You know what he?ll do: He?ll claim that Joe Biden?s victory was based on voter fraud, that millions of illegal immigrants cast ballots or something like that. Would the Republican Party, and perhaps more important, Fox News, support his refusal to accept reality? What do you think? So that?s why what just happened in Wisconsin scares me more than either disease or depression. For it shows that one of our two major parties simply doesn?t believe in democracy. Authoritarian rule may be just around the corner. // Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman # # # From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Apr 11 19:48:45 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 19:48:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] American democracy dying? Message-ID: American Democracy May Be Dying Authoritarian rule may be just around the corner. By Paul Krugman, Opinion Columnist NYT April 9, 2020 If you aren?t terrified both by Covid-19 and by its economic consequences, you haven?t been paying attention. Even though social distancing may be slowing the disease?s spread, tens of thousands more Americans will surely die in the months ahead (and official accounts surely understate the true death toll). And the economic lockdown necessary to achieve social distancing ? as I?ve been saying, the economy is in the equivalent of a medically induced coma ? has led to almost 17 million new claims for unemployment insurance over the past three weeks, again almost surely an understatement of true job losses. Yet the scariest news of the past week didn?t involve either epidemiology or economics; it was the travesty of an election in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court required that in-person voting proceed despite the health risks and the fact that many who requested absentee ballots never got them. Why was this so scary? Because it shows that America as we know it may not survive much longer. The pandemic will eventually end; the economy will eventually recover. But democracy, once lost, may never come back. And we?re much closer to losing our democracy than many people realize. To see how a modern democracy can die, look at events in Europe, especially Hungary, over the past decade. What happened in Hungary, beginning in 2011, was that Fidesz, the nation?s white nationalist ruling party, took advantage of its position to rig the electoral system, effectively making its rule permanent. Then it further consolidated its control, using political power to reward friendly businesses while punishing critics, and moved to suppress independent news media. Until recently, it seemed as if Viktor Orban, Hungary?s de facto dictator, might stop with soft authoritarianism, presiding over a regime that preserved some of the outward forms of democracy, neutralizing and punishing opposition without actually making criticism illegal. But now his government has used the coronavirus as an excuse to abandon even the pretense of constitutional government, giving Orban the power to rule by decree. If you say that something similar can?t happen here, you?re hopelessly na?ve. In fact, it?s already happening here, especially at the state level. Wisconsin, in particular, is well on its way toward becoming Hungary on Lake Michigan, as Republicans seek a permanent lock on power. The story so far: Back in 2018, Wisconsin?s electorate voted strongly for Democratic control. Voters chose a Democratic governor, and gave 53 percent of their support to Democratic candidates for the State Assembly. But the state is so heavily gerrymandered that despite this popular-vote majority, Democrats got only 36 percent of the Assembly?s seats. And far from trying to reach some accommodation with the governor-elect, Republicans moved to effectively emasculate him, drastically reducing the powers of his office. Then came Tuesday?s election. In normal times most attention would have been focused on the Democratic primary ? although that became a moot point when Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign. But a seat on the State Supreme Court was also at stake. Yet Wisconsin, like most of the country, is under a stay-at-home order. So why did Republican legislators, eventually backed by the Republican appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court, insist on holding an election as if the situation were normal? The answer is that the state shutdown had a much more severe impact on voting in Democratic-leaning urban areas, where a great majority of polling places were closed, than in rural or suburban areas. So the state G.O.P. was nakedly exploiting a pandemic to disenfranchise those likely to vote against it. What we saw in Wisconsin, in short, was a state party doing whatever it takes to cling to power even if a majority of voters want it out ? and a partisan bloc on the Supreme Court backing its efforts. Donald Trump, as usual, said the quiet part out loud: If we expand early voting and voting by mail, ?you?d never have a Republican elected in this country again.? Does anyone seriously doubt that something similar could happen, very soon, at a national level? This November, it?s all too possible that Trump will eke out an Electoral College win thanks to widespread voter suppression. If he does ? or even if he wins cleanly ? everything we?ve seen suggests that he will use a second term to punish everyone he sees as a domestic enemy, and that his party will back him all the way. That is, America will do a full Hungary. What if Trump loses? You know what he?ll do: He?ll claim that Joe Biden?s victory was based on voter fraud, that millions of illegal immigrants cast ballots or something like that. Would the Republican Party, and perhaps more important, Fox News, support his refusal to accept reality? What do you think? So that?s why what just happened in Wisconsin scares me more than either disease or depression. For it shows that one of our two major parties simply doesn?t believe in democracy. Authoritarian rule may be just around the corner. // Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman # # # From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Apr 12 06:38:24 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 01:38:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Sanders' campaign to draw people into the Democratic Party, and recent Democracy Now coverage Message-ID: DN is an increasingly establishment-friendly news outlet no better than NBC, CBS, PBS, etc. The issues that drove Aaron Mate away are serious and the most recent AOC interview on a major bill is consistent with their slide into being just another establishment outlet. Goodman's most recent AOC interview has some talk about the bailout bill (I refuse to call it a "stimulus" because it only stimulates executives ability to buy back their stock, artificially inflate their company value, and buy out competition all while not funding the public at large. None of that helps us.). https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/7/aoc_coronavirus_stimulus_corporate_slush_fund > JUAN GONZ?LEZ: [...] Congresswoman, could you talk about the debate that you had > within yourself in terms of whether to support this package, given the enormous > tax breaks and the direct grants and loans to corporate America? > > REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. Well, you know, I think, ultimately, this > debate, it was up to each and every member. I don?t slight any member for how they > voted. I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill, because I believe > that people will soon see the extraordinary asymmetrical assistance that went to > corporations. We?re not just talking about half a trillion dollars that went to > Wall Street, as I mentioned in my remarks. That is being leveraged to $4 trillion > for Wall Street and corporations. And what we?re seeing in payroll protection for > small businesses is just a drop in the bucket compared to that. > > But, ultimately, what this administration did was hold every hospital hostage, > hold every frontline worker hostage. And it is not an easy decision whatsoever for > any member. But, ultimately, I think that people will soon see the betrayal that > was in this bill, that was pushed forward by the administration and by Mitch > McConnell. It is completely ? it is completely unethical and inhumane, what has > been done. And we talk about the oversight of this bill. It is far too little. It > is far too flimsy. And what we have essentially done was give Steven Mnuchin a > blank check to pick and choose who this administration will reward with $4 > trillion. When AOC said "I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill" it gives the impression that she voted against the bill but she didn't exactly say that she voted against that bill. AOC won't say precisely how she voted and because DN's reportage is biased in her favor, they don't explicitly ask her how she voted using proper language and confirmation of how she voted. The Hill recently insisted "AOC DID vote no on the bailout" in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjXMdFCMDuk but there's no evidence to back that up. It's a voice vote. Sadly, The Hill quoted this same interview segment from DN to conclude that AOC voted against that bill. That's either The Hill's poor evaluation criteria at work, or they're a part of the manufacture of a proper image for AOC. Jimmy Dore responds to that claim from The Hill in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5uH0Dn7PfU and makes excellent points: - AOC should have called for a roll call vote, but she didn't. - AOC should have called out her leadership for not insisting on a roll call vote, but she didn't. - AOC has an invitation to go on Jimmy Dore's show and say that she did not vote for that bailout bill, but she won't go on Dore's show and say that because she knows the truth: she voted for that bill. I call this an excellent point because this is a real 'put up or shut up' moment and we need to be clear about who is on our side. - Therefore AOC wouldn't be using euphemisms like she "could not bring [her]self to ultimately support this bill" if she had voted against that bill. She'd be explicit and precise in her language. She'd rightfully and repeatedly boast to her base and to her constituents that she did right by them in their time of need, thus justifying putting her in power. I'd also add: - Democracy Now (Amy Goodman) never should have accepted that vague language from AOC. Goodman should have asked "So did you vote for the bill, yes or no?" but Goodman didn't do that. We had come to expect a vastly different interview style from DN and Goodman in particular -- asking lengthy questions to that CNN reporter (Aaron Brown?) about shitty news coverage from CNN, "keeping" Pres. Clinton on the phone answering tough questions and for far longer than he wanted to talk followed by Goodman pointing out in subsequent interviews about that call that 'the most powerful man in the world doesn't know how to hang up the phone?', and so on. We don't need unclear reportage like what we got from AOC in this promotional spot posing as an interview. We get euphemisms and obscurantism all the time from other establishment-friendly outlets. DN was supposed to stand apart from that coverage and be worth charitably contributing to. Consider this excerpt from DN, which is typical of what they've broadcast every day recently: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/bernie_sanders_naomi_klein > NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think the main thing that I want to say this morning, Amy, is > just that I just would like to express my huge gratitude to Bernie Sanders, to his > entire family, to the many people who worked for the campaign just so tirelessly > and opened up the window of what was possible politically in this country. It was > an incredibly tough campaign. And I trust that Bernie is making the right decision > in this moment as the leader of that campaign and also as a U.S. senator. I know > that he?s not going to just go relax, as he said in his address. He intends to > fight for people, as he has always done, in this critical moment, in terms of what > kind of relief, rescue and reimagining that we do in the midst of this pandemic. > He is staying on the ballot. He is still building power in order to pressure the > Democratic Party and Joe Biden to run the most progressive campaign that they can. > So, you know, I feel so much gratitude for Senator Sanders. > > More than anything else, I think what the campaign did is help us find each other. > And by ?us,? I mean that huge ?us? of the ?Not me. Us.? campaign. And he did this > not just in this campaign, but in 2016, where he really broke the spell of the > Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for four decades, that told people, who > believed, that this system that was funneling so much wealth upwards and spreading > insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution for everybody else ? everybody > who saw that system and thought there was something deeply wrong with it, what the > neoliberal era told us was that we were the ones who were crazy, we were a tiny > minority of fringe people, and that we should just accept it. And what the Sanders > campaign did in 2016 is tell us that we had been lied to, that, in fact, there > were so many millions of us who saw that this world was fundamentally upside down. > And all of the incredible organizing, including digital organizing but also > in-person organizing, wove this amazing web, and we were able to find each other > and find that we were many and they were few. And so, I don?t think we can ever > thank Bernie Sanders and the campaign enough for that. And being part of the > campaign as a volunteer ? but I did go to four states for the campaign ? was some > of the ? provided some of the greatest moments of my political life. I mean, I was > in Nevada when we won, and got to be part of that incredibly joyful moment and > just got to meet so many other like-minded people. Precisely what did Sanders do in or around 2016 that could fairly be described as "[breaking] the spell of the Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for four decades, that told people, who believed, that this system that was funneling so much wealth upwards and spreading insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution for everybody else"? Sanders used Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and some other policy ideas to attract people to a campaign he (by all available evidence) never intended to win. Then he full-throatedly endorsed his neoliberal opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton. People at the time were so pissed at how his campaign was treated that they sued the DNC corporation (a suit both DN and Sen. Sanders himself were tellingly silent about), and these disaffected Sanders supporters did not vote for Clinton (becoming part of a major reason why she lost -- she didn't keep the Obama voters across enough states with enough electoral votes to win). I believe that came to be known as "#DemExit", inspired by the portmanteau Brexit. Regarding Noam Chomsky's comments to DN about Sanders' 2020 campaign: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/noam_chomsky_bernie_sanders_campaign > Noam Chomsky: [...] Suppose Biden is elected. I would anticipate it would be > essentially a continuation of Obama ? nothing very great, but at least not totally > destructive, and opportunities for an organized public to change what is being > done, to impose pressures. > > It?s common to say now that the Sanders campaign failed. I think that?s a mistake. > I think it was an extraordinary success, completely shifted the arena of debate > and discussion. Issues that were unthinkable a couple years ago are now right in > the middle of attention. > > The worst crime he committed, in the eyes of the establishment, is not the policy > he?s proposing; it?s the fact that he was able to inspire popular movements, which > had already been developing ? Occupy, Black Lives Matter, many others ? and turn > them into an activist movement, which doesn?t just show up every couple years to > push a leader and then go home, but applies constant pressure, constant activism > and so on. That could affect a Biden administration. I disagree. With what leverage will Sanders "pressure the Democratic Party and Joe Biden to run the most progressive campaign that they can" (and what a weak standard that is) or "impose pressure"? What activist movement did Sanders build? Sanders had some people interested in his campaign and Sanders has a Democratic Party candidate incubator group ("Our Revolution"). I'd chiefly attribute increased interest in Medicare for All and Universal Basic Income now to COVID-19 lockdown/stay-at-home economic pressure (various types of strikes, people losing their jobs, to name a couple of examples) more than I'd attribute this to Sanders' speeches. And, even if we assume this activist movement exists, precisely how is that activist movement more likely to sway a theoretical Biden administration than the Trump administration? The most credit I can give Sanders is bringing slightly more attention to Medicare for All for a time but ultimately that credit had to stop when he abandoned that very effort in the swan song of his campaign (when he said "Let me be clear: I am not proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight continues into the future." and saying in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQV83U5Dk around 41m44s "This is not Medicare for All, we can?t pass that right now."). He did that in order to appease his real master the Democratic Party. I can't help but think that Congress knows that bailing out businesses was unnecessary and that they are all too feckless to challenge their party leadership for a better bill. So they're falling back on unchallenging PR to create better "optics" (as they say in the public relations biz). I could be convinced toward Chomsky's nicer position if he gave evidence. But there is none to be found so it's not surprising that Chomsky didn't give any evidence. As far as I can tell it's all a 'feelings'-based argument driven by a Democratic Party desire to manufacture a better legacy for someone who did drop Medicare for All promotion, and absolutely did vote for the bailout bill (we have the roll call vote to prove this). That vote means that Sanders could have made a name for himself by voting against that bill and then taken that 'no' vote to the people whom he still hopes to collect votes from and campaign contributions from -- remember that Sanders merely "suspended" his campaign. That bailout bill still would have easily passed the Senate without Sanders' yay vote). So my calling Sanders feckless seems completely fair, right, and proper to me, particularly considering that this is a time of obvious struggle for the poorest among us, and that this bill implements the largest wealth transfer. People haven't fully felt the effects of this bill yet. By the time they do they'll be asking "Wha happened?" and they'll need to look back on history and recognize not only what did happen, and who made it happen, but also they'll need to skip a lot of establishment-friendly media which was lying to them. Recent big events (including war!) are so poorly covered by DN of late, DN is just not worth my time and certainly not worth contributing money to. I only watch it now on rare occasion and purely as a bellweather for so-called "progressive" media as DN is still considered a well-known outlet in those circles. I don't trust the news I get from DN without other independent confirmations. Also, the interviews DN gets are often not that great (see above with AOC). I think that history will come to see Jeffrey St. Clair's book "Bernie & The Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution" (https://store.counterpunch.org/product/bernie-the-sandernistas/) about Sanders' 2016 campaign as prophetic -- Sanders deserved the criticism he received for his 2016 campaign from both St. Clair and Black Agenda Report (such as https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary). Sanders deserves the criticism he receives now. And the establishment-friendly media is desperate to create another narrative where Sanders looks a hell of a lot better than his political record can support (on April 7 he posted https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1247689671557201924 which reads "There is a word to describe our health care system today: grotesque. We need Medicare for All." and then on April 8 he "suspended" his campaign and dropped Medicare for All saying it wasn't politically tenable. If that doesn't urge sharp critique, what does? Sanders never had a foreign policy position that was clearly distinguishable from a neocon's, so he's got nothing to offer there). Perhaps Jimmy Dore is correct: Sanders did what he did to escape being viewed with hatred like the DNC views Ralph Nader. Sanders' choices are consistent with that motivation. From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 15:08:53 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Sanders' campaign to draw people into the Democratic Party, and recent Democracy Now coverage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://soundcloud.com/whatisleftpod/preview-the-politics-of-aoc Aimee Terese has been on to AOC for quite some time, this excerpt from 11 months ago. Her co-host Benjamin Studebaker has also written about AOC on his blog, in February of last year: https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2019/02/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-seems-confused-about-race/ On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 1:39 AM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > DN is an increasingly establishment-friendly news outlet no better than > NBC, CBS, > PBS, etc. The issues that drove Aaron Mate away are serious and the most > recent AOC > interview on a major bill is consistent with their slide into being just > another > establishment outlet. > > Goodman's most recent AOC interview has some talk about the bailout bill > (I refuse to > call it a "stimulus" because it only stimulates executives ability to buy > back their > stock, artificially inflate their company value, and buy out competition > all while > not funding the public at large. None of that helps us.). > > > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/7/aoc_coronavirus_stimulus_corporate_slush_fund > > JUAN GONZ?LEZ: [...] Congresswoman, could you talk about the debate > that you had > > within yourself in terms of whether to support this package, given the > enormous > > tax breaks and the direct grants and loans to corporate America? > > > > REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. Well, you know, I think, > ultimately, this > > debate, it was up to each and every member. I don?t slight any member > for how they > > voted. I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill, > because I believe > > that people will soon see the extraordinary asymmetrical assistance > that went to > > corporations. We?re not just talking about half a trillion dollars that > went to > > Wall Street, as I mentioned in my remarks. That is being leveraged to > $4 trillion > > for Wall Street and corporations. And what we?re seeing in payroll > protection for > > small businesses is just a drop in the bucket compared to that. > > > > But, ultimately, what this administration did was hold every hospital > hostage, > > hold every frontline worker hostage. And it is not an easy decision > whatsoever for > > any member. But, ultimately, I think that people will soon see the > betrayal that > > was in this bill, that was pushed forward by the administration and by > Mitch > > McConnell. It is completely ? it is completely unethical and inhumane, > what has > > been done. And we talk about the oversight of this bill. It is far too > little. It > > is far too flimsy. And what we have essentially done was give Steven > Mnuchin a > > blank check to pick and choose who this administration will reward with > $4 > > trillion. > > When AOC said "I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill" > it gives the > impression that she voted against the bill but she didn't exactly say that > she voted > against that bill. AOC won't say precisely how she voted and because DN's > reportage > is biased in her favor, they don't explicitly ask her how she voted using > proper > language and confirmation of how she voted. > > The Hill recently insisted "AOC DID vote no on the bailout" in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjXMdFCMDuk but there's no evidence to > back that up. > It's a voice vote. Sadly, The Hill quoted this same interview segment from > DN to > conclude that AOC voted against that bill. That's either The Hill's poor > evaluation > criteria at work, or they're a part of the manufacture of a proper image > for AOC. > > Jimmy Dore responds to that claim from The Hill in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5uH0Dn7PfU and makes excellent points: > > - AOC should have called for a roll call vote, but she didn't. > > - AOC should have called out her leadership for not insisting on a roll > call vote, > but she didn't. > > - AOC has an invitation to go on Jimmy Dore's show and say that she did > not vote for > that bailout bill, but she won't go on Dore's show and say that because > she knows the > truth: she voted for that bill. I call this an excellent point because > this is a real > 'put up or shut up' moment and we need to be clear about who is on our > side. > > - Therefore AOC wouldn't be using euphemisms like she "could not bring > [her]self to > ultimately support this bill" if she had voted against that bill. She'd be > explicit > and precise in her language. She'd rightfully and repeatedly boast to her > base and to > her constituents that she did right by them in their time of need, thus > justifying > putting her in power. > > I'd also add: > > - Democracy Now (Amy Goodman) never should have accepted that vague > language from > AOC. Goodman should have asked "So did you vote for the bill, yes or no?" > but Goodman > didn't do that. We had come to expect a vastly different interview style > from DN and > Goodman in particular -- asking lengthy questions to that CNN reporter > (Aaron Brown?) > about shitty news coverage from CNN, "keeping" Pres. Clinton on the phone > answering > tough questions and for far longer than he wanted to talk followed by > Goodman > pointing out in subsequent interviews about that call that 'the most > powerful man in > the world doesn't know how to hang up the phone?', and so on. We don't > need unclear > reportage like what we got from AOC in this promotional spot posing as an > interview. > We get euphemisms and obscurantism all the time from other > establishment-friendly > outlets. DN was supposed to stand apart from that coverage and be worth > charitably > contributing to. > > Consider this excerpt from DN, which is typical of what they've broadcast > every day > recently: > > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/bernie_sanders_naomi_klein > > NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think the main thing that I want to say this > morning, Amy, is > > just that I just would like to express my huge gratitude to Bernie > Sanders, to his > > entire family, to the many people who worked for the campaign just so > tirelessly > > and opened up the window of what was possible politically in this > country. It was > > an incredibly tough campaign. And I trust that Bernie is making the > right decision > > in this moment as the leader of that campaign and also as a U.S. > senator. I know > > that he?s not going to just go relax, as he said in his address. He > intends to > > fight for people, as he has always done, in this critical moment, in > terms of what > > kind of relief, rescue and reimagining that we do in the midst of this > pandemic. > > He is staying on the ballot. He is still building power in order to > pressure the > > Democratic Party and Joe Biden to run the most progressive campaign > that they can. > > So, you know, I feel so much gratitude for Senator Sanders. > > > > More than anything else, I think what the campaign did is help us find > each other. > > And by ?us,? I mean that huge ?us? of the ?Not me. Us.? campaign. And > he did this > > not just in this campaign, but in 2016, where he really broke the spell > of the > > Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for four decades, that told > people, who > > believed, that this system that was funneling so much wealth upwards > and spreading > > insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution for everybody else ? > everybody > > who saw that system and thought there was something deeply wrong with > it, what the > > neoliberal era told us was that we were the ones who were crazy, we > were a tiny > > minority of fringe people, and that we should just accept it. And what > the Sanders > > campaign did in 2016 is tell us that we had been lied to, that, in > fact, there > > were so many millions of us who saw that this world was fundamentally > upside down. > > And all of the incredible organizing, including digital organizing but > also > > in-person organizing, wove this amazing web, and we were able to find > each other > > and find that we were many and they were few. And so, I don?t think we > can ever > > thank Bernie Sanders and the campaign enough for that. And being part > of the > > campaign as a volunteer ? but I did go to four states for the campaign > ? was some > > of the ? provided some of the greatest moments of my political life. I > mean, I was > > in Nevada when we won, and got to be part of that incredibly joyful > moment and > > just got to meet so many other like-minded people. > > Precisely what did Sanders do in or around 2016 that could fairly be > described as > "[breaking] the spell of the Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for > four decades, > that told people, who believed, that this system that was funneling so > much wealth > upwards and spreading insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution > for everybody > else"? > > Sanders used Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and some other policy > ideas to > attract people to a campaign he (by all available evidence) never intended > to win. > Then he full-throatedly endorsed his neoliberal opponent Hillary Rodham > Clinton. > People at the time were so pissed at how his campaign was treated that > they sued the > DNC corporation (a suit both DN and Sen. Sanders himself were tellingly > silent > about), and these disaffected Sanders supporters did not vote for Clinton > (becoming > part of a major reason why she lost -- she didn't keep the Obama voters > across enough > states with enough electoral votes to win). I believe that came to be > known as > "#DemExit", inspired by the portmanteau Brexit. > > Regarding Noam Chomsky's comments to DN about Sanders' 2020 campaign: > > https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/noam_chomsky_bernie_sanders_campaign > > Noam Chomsky: [...] Suppose Biden is elected. I would anticipate it > would be > > essentially a continuation of Obama ? nothing very great, but at least > not totally > > destructive, and opportunities for an organized public to change what > is being > > done, to impose pressures. > > > > It?s common to say now that the Sanders campaign failed. I think that?s > a mistake. > > I think it was an extraordinary success, completely shifted the arena > of debate > > and discussion. Issues that were unthinkable a couple years ago are now > right in > > the middle of attention. > > > > The worst crime he committed, in the eyes of the establishment, is not > the policy > > he?s proposing; it?s the fact that he was able to inspire popular > movements, which > > had already been developing ? Occupy, Black Lives Matter, many others ? > and turn > > them into an activist movement, which doesn?t just show up every couple > years to > > push a leader and then go home, but applies constant pressure, constant > activism > > and so on. That could affect a Biden administration. > > I disagree. With what leverage will Sanders "pressure the Democratic Party > and Joe > Biden to run the most progressive campaign that they can" (and what a weak > standard > that is) or "impose pressure"? > > What activist movement did Sanders build? Sanders had some people > interested in his > campaign and Sanders has a Democratic Party candidate incubator group > ("Our Revolution"). > > I'd chiefly attribute increased interest in Medicare for All and Universal > Basic > Income now to COVID-19 lockdown/stay-at-home economic pressure (various > types of > strikes, people losing their jobs, to name a couple of examples) more than > I'd > attribute this to Sanders' speeches. > > And, even if we assume this activist movement exists, precisely how is > that activist > movement more likely to sway a theoretical Biden administration than the > Trump > administration? > > The most credit I can give Sanders is bringing slightly more attention to > Medicare > for All for a time but ultimately that credit had to stop when he > abandoned that very > effort in the swan song of his campaign (when he said "Let me be clear: I > am not > proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight > continues into the > future." and saying in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQV83U5Dk around > 41m44s "This > is not Medicare for All, we can?t pass that right now."). He did that in > order to > appease his real master the Democratic Party. > > I can't help but think that Congress knows that bailing out businesses was > unnecessary and that they are all too feckless to challenge their party > leadership > for a better bill. So they're falling back on unchallenging PR to create > better > "optics" (as they say in the public relations biz). > > I could be convinced toward Chomsky's nicer position if he gave evidence. > But there > is none to be found so it's not surprising that Chomsky didn't give any > evidence. As > far as I can tell it's all a 'feelings'-based argument driven by a > Democratic Party > desire to manufacture a better legacy for someone who did drop Medicare > for All > promotion, and absolutely did vote for the bailout bill (we have the roll > call vote > to prove this). That vote means that Sanders could have made a name for > himself by > voting against that bill and then taken that 'no' vote to the people whom > he still > hopes to collect votes from and campaign contributions from -- remember > that Sanders > merely "suspended" his campaign. That bailout bill still would have easily > passed the > Senate without Sanders' yay vote). So my calling Sanders feckless seems > completely > fair, right, and proper to me, particularly considering that this is a > time of > obvious struggle for the poorest among us, and that this bill implements > the largest > wealth transfer. People haven't fully felt the effects of this bill yet. > By the time > they do they'll be asking "Wha happened?" and they'll need to look back on > history > and recognize not only what did happen, and who made it happen, but also > they'll need > to skip a lot of establishment-friendly media which was lying to them. > > Recent big events (including war!) are so poorly covered by DN of late, DN > is just > not worth my time and certainly not worth contributing money to. I only > watch it now > on rare occasion and purely as a bellweather for so-called "progressive" > media as DN > is still considered a well-known outlet in those circles. I don't trust > the news I > get from DN without other independent confirmations. Also, the interviews > DN gets are > often not that great (see above with AOC). > > I think that history will come to see Jeffrey St. Clair's book "Bernie & > The > Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution" > (https://store.counterpunch.org/product/bernie-the-sandernistas/) about > Sanders' 2016 > campaign as prophetic -- Sanders deserved the criticism he received for > his 2016 > campaign from both St. Clair and Black Agenda Report (such as > https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary). > Sanders > deserves the criticism he receives now. And the establishment-friendly > media is > desperate to create another narrative where Sanders looks a hell of a lot > better than > his political record can support (on April 7 he posted > https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1247689671557201924 which reads > "There is a > word to describe our health care system today: grotesque. We need Medicare > for All." > and then on April 8 he "suspended" his campaign and dropped Medicare for > All saying > it wasn't politically tenable. If that doesn't urge sharp critique, what > does? > Sanders never had a foreign policy position that was clearly > distinguishable from a > neocon's, so he's got nothing to offer there). Perhaps Jimmy Dore is > correct: Sanders > did what he did to escape being viewed with hatred like the DNC views > Ralph Nader. > Sanders' choices are consistent with that motivation. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Apr 12 15:10:53 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:10:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Sanders' campaign to draw people into the Democratic Party, and recent Democracy Now coverage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My foreshadowing of Amy Goodman's decline dates at least to 2016: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/rape-culture-the-hunting-ground-and-amy-goodman-a-critical-perspective/ On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:08 AM David Green wrote: > https://soundcloud.com/whatisleftpod/preview-the-politics-of-aoc > > Aimee Terese has been on to AOC for quite some time, this excerpt from 11 > months ago. > > Her co-host Benjamin Studebaker has also written about AOC on his blog, in > February of last year: > > > https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2019/02/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-seems-confused-about-race/ > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 1:39 AM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> DN is an increasingly establishment-friendly news outlet no better than >> NBC, CBS, >> PBS, etc. The issues that drove Aaron Mate away are serious and the most >> recent AOC >> interview on a major bill is consistent with their slide into being just >> another >> establishment outlet. >> >> Goodman's most recent AOC interview has some talk about the bailout bill >> (I refuse to >> call it a "stimulus" because it only stimulates executives ability to buy >> back their >> stock, artificially inflate their company value, and buy out competition >> all while >> not funding the public at large. None of that helps us.). >> >> >> https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/7/aoc_coronavirus_stimulus_corporate_slush_fund >> > JUAN GONZ?LEZ: [...] Congresswoman, could you talk about the debate >> that you had >> > within yourself in terms of whether to support this package, given the >> enormous >> > tax breaks and the direct grants and loans to corporate America? >> > >> > REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. Well, you know, I think, >> ultimately, this >> > debate, it was up to each and every member. I don?t slight any member >> for how they >> > voted. I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill, >> because I believe >> > that people will soon see the extraordinary asymmetrical assistance >> that went to >> > corporations. We?re not just talking about half a trillion dollars >> that went to >> > Wall Street, as I mentioned in my remarks. That is being leveraged to >> $4 trillion >> > for Wall Street and corporations. And what we?re seeing in payroll >> protection for >> > small businesses is just a drop in the bucket compared to that. >> > >> > But, ultimately, what this administration did was hold every hospital >> hostage, >> > hold every frontline worker hostage. And it is not an easy decision >> whatsoever for >> > any member. But, ultimately, I think that people will soon see the >> betrayal that >> > was in this bill, that was pushed forward by the administration and by >> Mitch >> > McConnell. It is completely ? it is completely unethical and inhumane, >> what has >> > been done. And we talk about the oversight of this bill. It is far too >> little. It >> > is far too flimsy. And what we have essentially done was give Steven >> Mnuchin a >> > blank check to pick and choose who this administration will reward >> with $4 >> > trillion. >> >> When AOC said "I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill" >> it gives the >> impression that she voted against the bill but she didn't exactly say >> that she voted >> against that bill. AOC won't say precisely how she voted and because DN's >> reportage >> is biased in her favor, they don't explicitly ask her how she voted using >> proper >> language and confirmation of how she voted. >> >> The Hill recently insisted "AOC DID vote no on the bailout" in >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjXMdFCMDuk but there's no evidence to >> back that up. >> It's a voice vote. Sadly, The Hill quoted this same interview segment >> from DN to >> conclude that AOC voted against that bill. That's either The Hill's poor >> evaluation >> criteria at work, or they're a part of the manufacture of a proper image >> for AOC. >> >> Jimmy Dore responds to that claim from The Hill in >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5uH0Dn7PfU and makes excellent points: >> >> - AOC should have called for a roll call vote, but she didn't. >> >> - AOC should have called out her leadership for not insisting on a roll >> call vote, >> but she didn't. >> >> - AOC has an invitation to go on Jimmy Dore's show and say that she did >> not vote for >> that bailout bill, but she won't go on Dore's show and say that because >> she knows the >> truth: she voted for that bill. I call this an excellent point because >> this is a real >> 'put up or shut up' moment and we need to be clear about who is on our >> side. >> >> - Therefore AOC wouldn't be using euphemisms like she "could not bring >> [her]self to >> ultimately support this bill" if she had voted against that bill. She'd >> be explicit >> and precise in her language. She'd rightfully and repeatedly boast to her >> base and to >> her constituents that she did right by them in their time of need, thus >> justifying >> putting her in power. >> >> I'd also add: >> >> - Democracy Now (Amy Goodman) never should have accepted that vague >> language from >> AOC. Goodman should have asked "So did you vote for the bill, yes or no?" >> but Goodman >> didn't do that. We had come to expect a vastly different interview style >> from DN and >> Goodman in particular -- asking lengthy questions to that CNN reporter >> (Aaron Brown?) >> about shitty news coverage from CNN, "keeping" Pres. Clinton on the phone >> answering >> tough questions and for far longer than he wanted to talk followed by >> Goodman >> pointing out in subsequent interviews about that call that 'the most >> powerful man in >> the world doesn't know how to hang up the phone?', and so on. We don't >> need unclear >> reportage like what we got from AOC in this promotional spot posing as an >> interview. >> We get euphemisms and obscurantism all the time from other >> establishment-friendly >> outlets. DN was supposed to stand apart from that coverage and be worth >> charitably >> contributing to. >> >> Consider this excerpt from DN, which is typical of what they've broadcast >> every day >> recently: >> >> https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/bernie_sanders_naomi_klein >> > NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think the main thing that I want to say this >> morning, Amy, is >> > just that I just would like to express my huge gratitude to Bernie >> Sanders, to his >> > entire family, to the many people who worked for the campaign just so >> tirelessly >> > and opened up the window of what was possible politically in this >> country. It was >> > an incredibly tough campaign. And I trust that Bernie is making the >> right decision >> > in this moment as the leader of that campaign and also as a U.S. >> senator. I know >> > that he?s not going to just go relax, as he said in his address. He >> intends to >> > fight for people, as he has always done, in this critical moment, in >> terms of what >> > kind of relief, rescue and reimagining that we do in the midst of this >> pandemic. >> > He is staying on the ballot. He is still building power in order to >> pressure the >> > Democratic Party and Joe Biden to run the most progressive campaign >> that they can. >> > So, you know, I feel so much gratitude for Senator Sanders. >> > >> > More than anything else, I think what the campaign did is help us find >> each other. >> > And by ?us,? I mean that huge ?us? of the ?Not me. Us.? campaign. And >> he did this >> > not just in this campaign, but in 2016, where he really broke the >> spell of the >> > Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for four decades, that told >> people, who >> > believed, that this system that was funneling so much wealth upwards >> and spreading >> > insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution for everybody else ? >> everybody >> > who saw that system and thought there was something deeply wrong with >> it, what the >> > neoliberal era told us was that we were the ones who were crazy, we >> were a tiny >> > minority of fringe people, and that we should just accept it. And what >> the Sanders >> > campaign did in 2016 is tell us that we had been lied to, that, in >> fact, there >> > were so many millions of us who saw that this world was fundamentally >> upside down. >> > And all of the incredible organizing, including digital organizing but >> also >> > in-person organizing, wove this amazing web, and we were able to find >> each other >> > and find that we were many and they were few. And so, I don?t think we >> can ever >> > thank Bernie Sanders and the campaign enough for that. And being part >> of the >> > campaign as a volunteer ? but I did go to four states for the campaign >> ? was some >> > of the ? provided some of the greatest moments of my political life. I >> mean, I was >> > in Nevada when we won, and got to be part of that incredibly joyful >> moment and >> > just got to meet so many other like-minded people. >> >> Precisely what did Sanders do in or around 2016 that could fairly be >> described as >> "[breaking] the spell of the Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for >> four decades, >> that told people, who believed, that this system that was funneling so >> much wealth >> upwards and spreading insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution >> for everybody >> else"? >> >> Sanders used Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and some other policy >> ideas to >> attract people to a campaign he (by all available evidence) never >> intended to win. >> Then he full-throatedly endorsed his neoliberal opponent Hillary Rodham >> Clinton. >> People at the time were so pissed at how his campaign was treated that >> they sued the >> DNC corporation (a suit both DN and Sen. Sanders himself were tellingly >> silent >> about), and these disaffected Sanders supporters did not vote for Clinton >> (becoming >> part of a major reason why she lost -- she didn't keep the Obama voters >> across enough >> states with enough electoral votes to win). I believe that came to be >> known as >> "#DemExit", inspired by the portmanteau Brexit. >> >> Regarding Noam Chomsky's comments to DN about Sanders' 2020 campaign: >> >> https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/noam_chomsky_bernie_sanders_campaign >> > Noam Chomsky: [...] Suppose Biden is elected. I would anticipate it >> would be >> > essentially a continuation of Obama ? nothing very great, but at least >> not totally >> > destructive, and opportunities for an organized public to change what >> is being >> > done, to impose pressures. >> > >> > It?s common to say now that the Sanders campaign failed. I think >> that?s a mistake. >> > I think it was an extraordinary success, completely shifted the arena >> of debate >> > and discussion. Issues that were unthinkable a couple years ago are >> now right in >> > the middle of attention. >> > >> > The worst crime he committed, in the eyes of the establishment, is not >> the policy >> > he?s proposing; it?s the fact that he was able to inspire popular >> movements, which >> > had already been developing ? Occupy, Black Lives Matter, many others >> ? and turn >> > them into an activist movement, which doesn?t just show up every >> couple years to >> > push a leader and then go home, but applies constant pressure, >> constant activism >> > and so on. That could affect a Biden administration. >> >> I disagree. With what leverage will Sanders "pressure the Democratic >> Party and Joe >> Biden to run the most progressive campaign that they can" (and what a >> weak standard >> that is) or "impose pressure"? >> >> What activist movement did Sanders build? Sanders had some people >> interested in his >> campaign and Sanders has a Democratic Party candidate incubator group >> ("Our Revolution"). >> >> I'd chiefly attribute increased interest in Medicare for All and >> Universal Basic >> Income now to COVID-19 lockdown/stay-at-home economic pressure (various >> types of >> strikes, people losing their jobs, to name a couple of examples) more >> than I'd >> attribute this to Sanders' speeches. >> >> And, even if we assume this activist movement exists, precisely how is >> that activist >> movement more likely to sway a theoretical Biden administration than the >> Trump >> administration? >> >> The most credit I can give Sanders is bringing slightly more attention to >> Medicare >> for All for a time but ultimately that credit had to stop when he >> abandoned that very >> effort in the swan song of his campaign (when he said "Let me be clear: I >> am not >> proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight >> continues into the >> future." and saying in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQV83U5Dk around >> 41m44s "This >> is not Medicare for All, we can?t pass that right now."). He did that in >> order to >> appease his real master the Democratic Party. >> >> I can't help but think that Congress knows that bailing out businesses >> was >> unnecessary and that they are all too feckless to challenge their party >> leadership >> for a better bill. So they're falling back on unchallenging PR to create >> better >> "optics" (as they say in the public relations biz). >> >> I could be convinced toward Chomsky's nicer position if he gave evidence. >> But there >> is none to be found so it's not surprising that Chomsky didn't give any >> evidence. As >> far as I can tell it's all a 'feelings'-based argument driven by a >> Democratic Party >> desire to manufacture a better legacy for someone who did drop Medicare >> for All >> promotion, and absolutely did vote for the bailout bill (we have the roll >> call vote >> to prove this). That vote means that Sanders could have made a name for >> himself by >> voting against that bill and then taken that 'no' vote to the people whom >> he still >> hopes to collect votes from and campaign contributions from -- remember >> that Sanders >> merely "suspended" his campaign. That bailout bill still would have >> easily passed the >> Senate without Sanders' yay vote). So my calling Sanders feckless seems >> completely >> fair, right, and proper to me, particularly considering that this is a >> time of >> obvious struggle for the poorest among us, and that this bill implements >> the largest >> wealth transfer. People haven't fully felt the effects of this bill yet. >> By the time >> they do they'll be asking "Wha happened?" and they'll need to look back >> on history >> and recognize not only what did happen, and who made it happen, but also >> they'll need >> to skip a lot of establishment-friendly media which was lying to them. >> >> Recent big events (including war!) are so poorly covered by DN of late, >> DN is just >> not worth my time and certainly not worth contributing money to. I only >> watch it now >> on rare occasion and purely as a bellweather for so-called "progressive" >> media as DN >> is still considered a well-known outlet in those circles. I don't trust >> the news I >> get from DN without other independent confirmations. Also, the interviews >> DN gets are >> often not that great (see above with AOC). >> >> I think that history will come to see Jeffrey St. Clair's book "Bernie & >> The >> Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution" >> (https://store.counterpunch.org/product/bernie-the-sandernistas/) about >> Sanders' 2016 >> campaign as prophetic -- Sanders deserved the criticism he received for >> his 2016 >> campaign from both St. Clair and Black Agenda Report (such as >> https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary). >> Sanders >> deserves the criticism he receives now. And the establishment-friendly >> media is >> desperate to create another narrative where Sanders looks a hell of a lot >> better than >> his political record can support (on April 7 he posted >> https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1247689671557201924 which reads >> "There is a >> word to describe our health care system today: grotesque. We need >> Medicare for All." >> and then on April 8 he "suspended" his campaign and dropped Medicare for >> All saying >> it wasn't politically tenable. If that doesn't urge sharp critique, what >> does? >> Sanders never had a foreign policy position that was clearly >> distinguishable from a >> neocon's, so he's got nothing to offer there). Perhaps Jimmy Dore is >> correct: Sanders >> did what he did to escape being viewed with hatred like the DNC views >> Ralph Nader. >> Sanders' choices are consistent with that motivation. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Apr 12 17:26:59 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:26:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [unac] SIGN THE OPEN LETTER to the Government of the United States and the United Nations In-Reply-To: References: <5e9321df.1c69fb81.85910.ea62@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <000301d610ef$936694d0$ba33be70$@comcast.net> From: national-workers-conference-committee at googlegroups.com [mailto:national-workers-conference-committee at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Lang Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 10:30 AM To: meltdownIII at yahoogroups.com; National Workers Conference Committe; Jessica Lang; Kendu Harvin; Terrence Winston; Ravenous; Gladys Valdevieso; Nancy Manus Subject: Fwd: [unac] SIGN THE OPEN LETTER to the Government of the United States and the United Nations Please sign. On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:16 AM UNAC wrote: Click here to read this email in your browser COVID-19 & US Sanctions: Sign the Open Letter to the Government of the United States and the United Nations UNAC is working with antiwar leaders and groups from around the world to get a massive amount of letters to the US government, and the United Nations, to demand an end to sanctions, especially during this period of the fight against COVID-19. Please sign the letter below and pass this on to others. When you sign, a letter will automatically be sent in your name. Dear Friends of Peace, Justice and Human Rights Around the World, The global spread of COVID-19 has exposed the illegal and immoral practice of imposing unilateral coercive measures (economic sanctions) by the United States government against more than thirty nations. The economic war against those nations had already resulted in unimaginable suffering of the people in the targeted nations even before the COVID-19 pandemic. With the devastation of the global pandemic, the targeted countries ? especially Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and Zimbabwe ? are finding it prohibitively difficult to protect and save the lives of their citizens in the face of the ongoing global emergency. These sanctions constitute crimes against humanity. Instead of helping these countries fight the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government of the United States is now using the public distraction caused by the pandemic to intensify its military actions against the targeted nations. It is increasing its threats against Iran and Syria by engaging in a silent buildup of its military forces in Iraq again, and has dispatched its Naval warships to the shores of Venezuela, demanding the total surrender of the Venezuelan government to the United States. Only a global wave of popular protest can stop these anti-human policies and actions. Please use the link provided below to sign the Open Letter to the Government of the United States and the United Nations, addressed to the President of the United States and Secretary General of the United Nations, demanding that all U.S and UN sanctions against the targeted nations be lifted, and all U.S. military threats and actions against them be stopped immediately. We are dealing with a global emergency and must act quickly. Free Julian Assange (Webinar and livestream, see below to register) The Prosecution of Julian Assange and the Fight for Free Speech Sunday, April 19, National/International Zoom Webinar 12 Noon Pacific 2 pm Midwest 3 pm East Coast 8 pm London (Benefit for the Courage Foundation, for Julian Assange?s defense*) Julian Join us for a panel discussion of leading attorneys, human rights defenders and social justice activists as the London trial of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is underway. If Assange is extradited to the United States, he faces the first-ever charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 for the publication of truthful information in the public interest. Speakers will present the critical legal and policy issues involved as well as rebut government efforts to undermine the reputation and credibility of Assange. In these difficult times for civil liberties and democratic rights we demand: Free Julian Assange! Defend Free Speech and the First Amendment! Panel Speakers: Jim Lafferty, Executive Director for three decades, National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles Margaret Kimberley, Black Agenda Report Representative, Bay Area National Lawyers Guild Jennifer Robinson, Julian Assange?s London attorney (message) Joe Lombardo, National Coordinator, United National Antiwar Coalition Nathan Fuller, Executive Director, Courage Foundation* Nozomi Hayase, author, contributor to the new book, In Defense of Julian Assange Moderator: Jeff Mackler, author, Obama?s National Security State: The Meaning of the Edward Snowden Revelations *The Courage Foundation, an international whistleblower support network, campaigns for the public and legal defense of Julian Assange and for the protection of truthtellers and the public?s right to know, internationally. Contribute to Julian Assange's defense here: Defend.wilileaks.org/donate Sponsors: Bay Area Julian Assange Defense Committee ? National Lawyers Guild Bay Area ? Courage Foundation ? United National Antiwar Coalition To register for the Zoom conference click here . Please see and share the Facebook event here. The webinar will also be livestreamed to the Facebook event here . Initial co-sponsors: CodePink Bay Area ? Social Justice Center of Marin ? Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, US Section ? Kevin Zeese, Popular Resistance, advisory board, Courage Foundation, past Steering Committee member Chelsea Manning Support Committee ? Marin Peace and Justice Center ? Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, Margaret Kimberley, Black Agenda Report For more information, jmackler at lmi.net With video messages from Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker Please make a contribution to UNAC: https://www.unacpeace.org/donate.html If your organization would like to join the UNAC coalition, please click here: https://www.unacpeace.org/join.html To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to UNAC-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net Image removed by sender. Virus-free. www.avast.com --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Workers Conference Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to national-workers-conference-committee+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/national-workers-conference-committee/CAOpeSiV0ZZ%2BhSF%2BCsVJt3B38mh7QrtQ-0XpEjwjWP0PKCeZS0A%40mail.gmail.com . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0A5BE7F2177A48229091F921F84E67FF.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 70387 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 3196CF2958FD4CF4B05DAFA4F9F581AD.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5259 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6498A6A5DACF495480C938FC27F97E15.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 350 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Mon Apr 13 02:02:16 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 21:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News From Neptune #451 notes In-Reply-To: <790e735a-926c-cb6c-7e99-2bb7172a52a7@forestfield.org> References: <790e735a-926c-cb6c-7e99-2bb7172a52a7@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <09226168-62a6-9a06-06d7-133807ba36c6@forestfield.org> I wrote: > Washington Post on cryptography company, Crypto AG > http://archive.ph/pk2nu > https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-security/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/ Now there is: A followup Chris Hedges interview to this with William Binney (Intelligence Analyst & NSA whistleblower) https://cdnv.rt.com/files/2020.04/5e92b3e285f540458b47569d.mp4 -- the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsbDRDNHGYc -- the video https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/485560-binney-cia-intelligence-coup/ -- a transcript will likely show up here Binney talks about civil liberties, the constant attack on privacy, some of the means by which: one's presence can be tracked, people can be physically burned (Binney alleges that there are the means to use microwave radiation to burn skin from a distance), and one's commonly-used technology (your tracker/cell phone, your "Internet of Things" devices, etc.) can be spied upon to make it rat you out all the time, everywhere you go, and even when you think some of these devices are turned off. Doesn't William Binney have some connection to the allegations that Russia "hacked" the DNC emails and gave them to WikiLeaks? Binney is also the one who spoke of the effort of a number of people including the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity conducted to test the widely repeated claim Hillary Clinton made about Russians somehow breaking the DNC's security to obtain a copy of emails and then conveying that data to WikiLeaks for publication (https://wikileaks.org//dnc-emails/). What they discovered completely debunked Clinton's claim. 20m34s into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjHs-E2e2V4 Abby Martin talks with Bill Binney about how we know the DNC emails were leaked from the inside and not obtained remotely over the Internet (a claim he's made consistently for years on a variety of news outlets): > Abby Martin: Let's move on to the allegations of Russian hacking into Podesta's > email account in the DNC. Can you first go over the evidence that Muller claims to > have that proves that it's Russia? > > Bill Binney: Well you see, I really don't know of any evidence that Mueller has > because he's never made it public. So, the only evidence I have is what's made > public. And from that it went into the Rosenstein indictment, you know the > Guccifer 2 and the DC Leaks data. And they talked about that as the evidence for > the indictments and so on. You know they claimed that Guccifer 2 is a Russian, but > the timestamps that we have on the programming inside the data that was published > by Guccifer 2 shows timestamps that are consistently inside the United States. But > that's not the real issue, the real issue was with the data itself and how quickly > it was downloaded, it was incompatible with a transfer across the net to anywhere > or any distance. If it went beyond the high-speed line that you had dedicated to > you, then it slowed down. > > Abby Martin: Explain that in laymen's terms -- why you think this was an inside > leak as opposed to a hack? > > Bill Binney: Okay, well, the fastest download speed we had was a 49.1 megabyte > rate. Which meant that the hacker was taking the data out at that rate across the > network, where ever they were. You know they could be local, they could be > anywhere. Well, we said okay, what is the capacity of the lines going across to > Europe? And at that point everything failed -- you couldn't get it across that > fast. But you could to a thumb drive or something local. Some of our people > disagreed with that, they said they thought it could. So we said, okay we'll try > it. So we've got hacker friends in Europe trying to -- and a friend in the US to > put up a gigabyte of data and say 'Here, try to pull it across, see how fast you > can get it.'. And the fastest they could get was from a data center in New Jersey > to the UK in London. And that was 12.0 megabytes per second -- less than > one-fourth the necessary capacity to transmit the data alone. > > Abby Martin: Well, what about the timestamps: do you think that Russia could have > been throwing off analysts by planting false timestamps? > > Bill Binney: First off, to understand the massive surveillance that is involved: > everything is captured by NSA. So, NSA should have some of that evidence > somewhere. And they have failed to come forward, even the ICA -- the Intelligence > Community Assessment -- that Russia "hacked it", you know? NSA had "moderate > confidence". > > Abby Martin: Right, what does that mean? > > Bill Binney: That means we have no evidence. > > Abby Martin: Because the other intelligence agencies said they had confidence but > the NSA said they had "moderate confidence". > > Bill Binney: You see, they aren't relevant. When it comes to communication, NSA is > the only one that matters. The rest of them don't. > > Abby Martin: And did they explain what the "moderate confidence" that they had > meant? > > Bill Binney: No. I mean, to me, that's language for 'I have no evidence.'. > > Abby Martin: I wanted to get this out of the way because it's always interested me > because you claim that British diplomat Craig Murray corroborates this-- > > Bill Binney: Yep. > > Abby Martin: --he claims that he handed over a drive to someone. > > Bill Binney: Well, he talked to somebody who was involved in transferring the > data, yeah. > > Abby Martin: So he, himself, talked to someone. > > Bill Binney: But even from the forensic evidence based on the WikiLeaks exposure > of data that they published there were multiple ways that they got it. > > Abby Martin: Then who else has corroborated your findings? > > Bill Binney: A number of technical people, people in the Veteran Intelligence > Professionals for Sanity and others around the world, by the way. So there is no evidence that these emails came from Russians breaking into the DNC's computers remotely over the Internet. The Russiagate line that Hillary Clinton and "every Blairite, every Clintonite, by the BBC, by CNN, by the Guardian, the New York Times and the Washington Post" (per former Ambassador Craig Murray in his blog on https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/in-the-world-of-truth-and-fact-russiagate-is-dead-in-the-world-of-the-political-establishment-it-is-still-the-new-42/) repeats widely is false. So how did the data get to WikiLeaks? John Kiriakou brought up Craig Murray in Kiriakou's interview with Redacted Tonight's Lee Camp: Starting at 3m55s into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrVWeA2QmWk > Lee Camp: And this is one of the many holes in the Muller report, which still > found no collusion, but they [the FBI] didn't even talk to Julian Assange. > > John Kiriakou: They never even /asked/ to talk to Julian Assange. > > Lee Camp: It's amazing. > > John Kiriakou: And I'll tell you who else they didn't talk to was Ambassador Craig > Murray. Craig's the former ambassador to Uzbekistan. He came here [to the US] > right around that time in 2016 to participate in a Sam Adams award ceremony. Sam > Adams is a group of retired CIA, NSA, other intelligence officers and we were > giving an award. Well, Craig loves to go out drinking after these award > ceremonies. That night he didn't. That night he said he had an important meeting. > As it turned out his important meeting was to meet someone who he's never named > who gave him a thumb drive with all of the information on it -- all of the DNC > emails-- > > Lee Camp: Wow. > > John Kiriakou: --which he then took to WikiLeaks. > > Lee Camp: Wow. > > John Kiriakou: So if he has come out to confess that it was not a hack, not a > Russian hack, [saying] 'I physically carried the documents to WikiLeaks', why did > the FBI never want to interview him? > > Lee Camp: That's incredible, I didn't even know that detail. But there's been a > lot of other evidence brought forward that this was not a hack, it was a leak. It > was from the inside. > > John Kiriakou: It was; Bill Binney, the former Technical Director at the NSA has > said repeatedly -- including in the Oval Office -- that the rate of speed with the > information was uploaded shows -- proves -- that it could not possibly have been > done remotely. It had to have been done on- site on a thumb drive. > > Lee Camp: Yeah, but that upends the whole 'Russia did it' idea so we can't have > that. So it's quite possible that Seth Rich, former DNC employee, copied the emails from the DNC server to a USB key (thumb drive) and gave that thumb drive to Craig Murray who met Rich on the night of the Sam Adams award ceremony. Seth Rich would later be murdered on the streets of Washington, D.C. not far from where he worked for the DNC. And Murray took that thumb drive to WikiLeaks. This is not a far-fetched chain of events according to Ed Butowsky who is suing a number of parties: http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019.07.15-Amended-complaint-stamped.pdf > Michael Gottlieb, Meryl Governski, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Brad Bauman, The > Pastorum Group, Leonard A. Gail, Eli J. Kay-Oliphant, Suyash Agrawal, Massey & > Gail LLP, Gregory Y. Porter, Michael L. Murphy, Bailey & Glasser LLP, Turner > Broadcasting System, Inc., Anderson Cooper, Gary Tuchman, Oliver Darcy, Tom Kludt, > The New York Times Company, Alan Feuer, Vox Media, Inc., and Jane Coaston claiming that the negative press about Seth Rich's involvement ('Seth Rich is not involved, Russia did it!') hurt Butowsky's business. Butowsky's lawyer is Ty Clevenger who has written about this case on his blog at http://lawflog.com/?p=2210 . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGac4K4KuPo -- RT's report on Butowsky's lawsuit. https://www.blackagendareport.com/russiagate-fanatic-michael-isikoffs-curious-project -- Black Agenda Report article which also talks about a project Russiagate-supporter Michael Isikoff started trying to distract people from paying attention to any news which says Seth Rich had anything to do with the DNC emails, or that those emails were leaked and not illicitly obtained by Russians via the Internet. Garrison transcribed and summarized some part of that conversation between Hersh and Butowsky: > Seymour Hersh: I'll tell you what I know. What I know comes off an FBI report. > Don?t ask me how. You can figure out I?ve been around long enough. This is > according to the FBI report. What they find is he [Rich] makes con[tact]. First of > all, you have to know, you have to know some basic facts. One of the basic facts, > is there?s no DNC or Podesta email that exists beyond May 22nd, May 21st, 22nd, > the last emails from either one of those groups. And so what the report says is > that sometime in late spring?we're talking about June, you know, summer and June > 21st, late spring would be after, I presume . . . I don't know. I just say late > spring, early summer, he [Rich] makes contact with Wikileaks. That's in his > computer and he makes contact. They [FBI investigators] found what he had done. He > had submitted a series of documents, of emails, some juicy emails from the DNC. He > offered a sample, an extensive sample?y?know I'm sure dozens of email?and said, ?I > want money.? > > Later Wikileaks did get the password. He had a Dropbox, a protected Dropbox, which > isn?t hard to do. I mean you don't have to be a wizard, IT wizard. Y?know he was > certainly not a dumb kid, and they got access to the Dropbox. He [Rich] also, and > this is also in the FBI report, he?d also let people know with whom he was > dealing, and I don?t know how he dealt?I?ll tell you about Wikileaks in a second. > I don?t know how he dealt with Wikileaks?the mechanism. But he also, the word was > passed, according to the FBI report, ?I also shared this box with a couple of > friends, so if anything happens to me, you?re not, it?s not going to solve your > [their?] problem.? OK? I don?t know what that means, I don?t know what he was ? > anyway, but Wikileaks got access and before he was killed. > > Ed Butowsky: But what you?re saying is that he uploaded stuff into the Wikileaks > dropbox and they pulled it down and that?s where the Podesta and DNC emails came > from. > > Seymour Hersh: It doesn?t preclude Russians also hacking them! I just don?t think > that. Y?know it?s always Occam's Razor. Wikileaks got ?em. > > Ed Butowsky: Yeah, I know. I understand. But I wanta stay focused on one thing > just for a moment. You saw the FBI report? > > Seymour Hersh: No. I have somebody on the inside. Y?know I?ve been around a long > time and I write a lot of stuff. I have somebody on the inside who will go and > read a file for me. And I know this person is unbelievably accurate and careful. > He?s a very high-level guy and he?ll do a favor. > > Ed Butowsky: And is there any way we can get our hands on the report? > > Hersh responded that he could not risk exposing his high-level FBI source by > sharing a document even if he could get one. He then asked Butowsky to tell him > what he knew: > > Seymour Hersh: My pen is down. I?m not quoting you about anything. I know that. > What do you know? > > Ed Butowsky: I know that Julian Assange told a friend of mine who met with him > that he got the emails from Seth Rich. > > Seymour Hersh: Whoa! > > Ed Butowsky: And they?re very personal friends. > > Hersh said that he had been working on the story since August 2016 because he > foresaw that Russia would be blamed for the email leaks. > > Seymour Hersh: I?ve been doing this story since the late summer because I smelled > it, I smelled it in August. OK? That the fallback was going to be Russia. From jbn at forestfield.org Mon Apr 13 23:27:51 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:27:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching Message-ID: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWDx3nKm_Gc -- Will the economy ever be the same again? No, says Mark Blyth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STZiEfayDf8 -- On bailing out the airlines. and Aaron Mate is live now in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dETLYyxgP5g (archived copy is coming soon, no doubt). -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 14 00:14:23 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 17:14:23 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching In-Reply-To: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> Message-ID: My thoughts on one of the links: Aaron is a great journalist and interviewer, but Jimmy is a better analyst. Aaron?s suggestion of going with the lesser evil and pushing to the left is very disappointing given we don?t have time for that nonsense, people are dying without jobs, without housing, without healthcare, the last thing we need is another administration subject to the capitalist ruling elites. The Intercept maybe good on domestic issues, but they lack credibility on foreign policy, which is critical, is one of the reasons I don?t pay much attention to them anymore. > On Apr 13, 2020, at 16:27, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > > > and Aaron Mate is live now in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dETLYyxgP5g (archived copy is coming soon, no doubt). > > -J > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Apr 14 19:38:03 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] An old friend Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s07-OaAA2M8&feature=share From jbw292002 at gmail.com Tue Apr 14 22:14:57 2020 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:14:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching In-Reply-To: References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:15 PM Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: My thoughts on one of the links: > > Aaron is a great journalist and interviewer, but Jimmy is a better > analyst. > > Aaron?s suggestion of going with the lesser evil and pushing to the left > is very disappointing given we don?t have time for that nonsense, people > are dying without jobs, without housing, without healthcare, the last thing > we need is another administration subject to the capitalist ruling elites. So four more years of tRump then, Karen? Or is now the time for that violent, bloody revolution we've been dreaming of our whole lives? > The Intercept maybe good on domestic issues, but they lack credibility on > foreign policy, which is critical, is one of the reasons I don?t pay much > attention to them anymore. > > > > On Apr 13, 2020, at 16:27, J.B. Nicholson via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > and Aaron Mate is live now in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dETLYyxgP5g (archived copy is coming > soon, no doubt). > > > > -J > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 14 23:08:16 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching In-Reply-To: References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> Message-ID: John If one only looks at the surface and assumes we can push Biden to do the right thing, if we continue to bend the knee to power, taking whatever crumbs of cake the ruling elites throw at us, it?s going to be very bloody. Wait until the economy crashes, crime escalates, gangs roam the streets as starving people become really angry. People are already dying in record numbers from the pandemic and our government owned by corporate capitalists. Why do you think FDR gave us the New Deal, because he?s a nice guy? He did it to save capitalism as he feared a revolution, due to the many people, workers, socialists etc. in the streets protesting, striking, sit downs etc. Why did Johnson de-escalate the war in Vietnam 1968? Because the many people in the streets was an embarrassment internationally, for the ruling elites, and Johnson?s advisors. The revolt by the soldiers and veterans was the final step. Gandi utilized non violence and it was effective at driving out the British, but the people did take action, sit ins, strikes, blocking traffic, rail transport, putting their lives on the line. The civil rights movement, led by MLK, and started years before by CORE and others with sit-ins, is an example of that which works, with nonviolence. Why did Nixon end the draft, and give us the EPA? He feared the people in the streets, he feared a revolution. People don?t have healthcare, jobs, or a living wage, and the Democrat Party isn?t going to give us anything more than what Obama did, because the insurance cos. and pharma cos. own our government, along with our weapons manufacturers, oil cos. etc. As awful as Trump is, he isn?t the disease he is a symptom of the disease of rot and decay that is our system. Unless we have system change the decline will continue. Global warming and nuclear war are the two major threats facing us and the Democrat Party is doing nothing about it, or providing a veneer and watered down versions of what we need. We get a Democrat in power and the liberals all go to sleep, they only wake up when there is a Republican in power. Even then I have to ask what are they doing about anything, other than here in our own little community. We can put on our pink hats and get on buses to DC anytime the DNC provides us, and we feel insulted, or disrespected. Never mind, the people we have slaughtered in our eight wars in less than twenty years, they don?t count, they aren?t white and we only care about the people of color in our own neighborhood. We will only have system change when the people insist upon it by getting off the treadmill of insanity, expecting our corrupt electoral system to put in place another individual, who might be kinder to us, if we ask nicely. The Republican and Democrat Party?s both represent the ruling class and the working class ain?t apart of it. Violence occurs every day when our militarized police shoot us down in the streets, our incarceration of huge numbers of people, with our prison system of for profit, prevents many of the poor from rising up. And, our most profitable business next to financial services is weapons of destruction and war which will be worse, much worse under Biden, or anyone of the current system for that matter. The problem today, is we lack a strong labor movement, we have a lot of people who are unemployed thus lacking power. Which is why its up to the many Americans who are politically active to focus on what needs to be done, and its not focusing on elections. Occupy had the right idea, as to focus, and if they had been better organized, had stronger cohesive leadership, and a plan, they might not have given up so easily when the police dispersed them in Zukotti park. > On Apr 14, 2020, at 15:14, John W. wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:15 PM Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: > > My thoughts on one of the links: > > Aaron is a great journalist and interviewer, but Jimmy is a better analyst. > > Aaron?s suggestion of going with the lesser evil and pushing to the left is very disappointing given we don?t have time for that nonsense, people are dying without jobs, without housing, without healthcare, the last thing we need is another administration subject to the capitalist ruling elites. > > > So four more years of tRump then, Karen? Or is now the time for that violent, bloody revolution we've been dreaming of our whole lives? > > > > The Intercept maybe good on domestic issues, but they lack credibility on foreign policy, which is critical, is one of the reasons I don?t pay much attention to them anymore. > > > > On Apr 13, 2020, at 16:27, J.B. Nicholson via Peace > wrote: > > > > > > and Aaron Mate is live now in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dETLYyxgP5g (archived copy is coming soon, no doubt). > > > > -J > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Tue Apr 14 23:47:36 2020 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:47:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching In-Reply-To: References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:08 PM Karen Aram wrote: John > > If one only looks at the surface and assumes we can push Biden to do the > right thing, if we continue to bend the knee to power, taking whatever > crumbs of cake the ruling elites throw at us, it?s going to be very bloody. > Wait until the economy crashes, crime escalates, gangs roam the streets as > starving people become really angry. People are already dying in record > numbers from the pandemic and our government owned by corporate > capitalists. > > Why do you think FDR gave us the New Deal, because he?s a nice guy? He > did it to save capitalism as he feared a revolution, due to the many > people, workers, socialists etc. in the streets protesting, striking, sit > downs etc. > Well, I think he was probably a pretty nice guy, a person of genuine integrity, as was his wife. And yes, they were desperate times which called for desperate measures. Intelligent desperate measures. > Why did Johnson de-escalate the war in Vietnam 1968? Because the many > people in the streets was an embarrassment internationally, for the ruling > elites, and Johnson?s advisors. The revolt by the soldiers and veterans was > the final step. > > Gandi utilized non violence and it was effective at driving out the > British, but the people did take action, sit ins, strikes, blocking > traffic, rail transport, putting their lives on the line. > > The civil rights movement, led by MLK, and started years before by CORE > and others with sit-ins, is an example of that which works, with > nonviolence. > Yes. And there are those who believe that the implied violence of Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and others played a role also. > Why did Nixon end the draft, and give us the EPA? He feared the people in > the streets, he feared a revolution. > > People don?t have healthcare, jobs, or a living wage, and the Democrat > Party isn?t going to give us anything more than what Obama did, because the > insurance cos. and pharma cos. own our government, along with our weapons > manufacturers, oil cos. etc. > More than they did in the FDR era? > As awful as Trump is, he isn?t the disease he is a symptom of the disease > of rot and decay that is our system. > That is true. He is a logical culmination of the disease that started at least with Reagan. So we need a cure for the disease. And that's what we need to be discussing. I'm not sure we quite agree on what the disease is, let alone how to eradicate it, but we would agree on most of the symptoms. But even that is just you and me and a few others. Many of our fellow citizens are still in elementary school, politically and philosophically. > Unless we have system change the decline will continue. Global warming and > nuclear war are the two major threats facing us and the Democrat Party is > doing nothing about it, or providing a veneer and watered down versions of > what we need. > Sadly, that's true. > We get a Democrat in power and the liberals all go to sleep, they only > wake up when there is a Republican in power. Even then I have to ask what > are they doing about anything, other than here in our own little community. > We can put on our pink hats and get on buses to DC anytime the DNC provides > us, and we feel insulted, or disrespected. Never mind, the people we have > slaughtered in our eight wars in less than twenty years, they don?t count, > they aren?t white and we only care about the people of color in our own > neighborhood. > > We will only have system change when the people insist upon it by getting > off the treadmill of insanity, expecting our corrupt electoral system to > put in place another individual, who might be kinder to us, if we ask > nicely. The Republican and Democrat Party?s both represent the ruling class > and the working class ain?t a part of it. > Again, the working class WAS a part of the equation with FDR, and with maybe a handful of other leaders. But overall, the poor are never, never, never on this earth going to be a major consideration for long. Hell, all most of them want to do is become the rich so that THEY can run things for their own advantage. > Violence occurs every day when our militarized police shoot us down in the > streets, our incarceration of huge numbers of people, with our prison > system of for profit, prevents many of the poor from rising up. And, our > most profitable business next to financial services is weapons of > destruction and war which will be worse, much worse under Biden, or anyone > of the current system for that matter. > > The problem today, is we lack a strong labor movement, we have a lot of > people who are unemployed thus lacking power. Which is why its up to the > many Americans who are politically active to focus on what needs to be > done, and its not focusing on elections. > A strong labor movement again would certainly be nice. But that's only one factor. And when we DID have a strong labor movement, what were most of the rank and file union members doing? Certainly not advocating for radical change. They were not Dave Johnsons. Quite the contrary. They were luxuriating in their nice new mortgaged homes, driving their shiny cars, watching their color TV, consuming way too much useless crap while enjoying their newly-possible middle class lifestyle. No revolutionaries they! I know this intimately. I was there. I was one of them. > Occupy had the right idea, as to focus, and if they had been better > organized, had stronger cohesive leadership, and a plan, they might not > have given up so easily when the police dispersed them in Zukotti park. > Well, that's what I've been waiting for my entire life - strong cohesive leadership, good organization, and a plan. Not seeing it, either inside or outside the Democratic party. Interestingly enough, the Koch-funded Tea Party Republicans HAVE had strong cohesive leadership, good organization, and a long-range plan for the past 40 years. They've worked the plan ruthlessly, but at the cost of their souls. Perhaps we should learn from them? John > On Apr 14, 2020, at 15:14, John W. wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:15 PM Karen Aram via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > My thoughts on one of the links: >> >> Aaron is a great journalist and interviewer, but Jimmy is a better >> analyst. >> >> Aaron?s suggestion of going with the lesser evil and pushing to the left >> is very disappointing given we don?t have time for that nonsense, people >> are dying without jobs, without housing, without healthcare, the last thing >> we need is another administration subject to the capitalist ruling elites. > > > > So four more years of tRump then, Karen? Or is now the time for that > violent, bloody revolution we've been dreaming of our whole lives? > > > > >> The Intercept maybe good on domestic issues, but they lack credibility on >> foreign policy, which is critical, is one of the reasons I don?t pay much >> attention to them anymore. >> >> >> > On Apr 13, 2020, at 16:27, J.B. Nicholson via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> > and Aaron Mate is live now in >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dETLYyxgP5g (archived copy is coming >> soon, no doubt). >> > >> > -J >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Peace mailing list >> > Peace at lists.chambana.net >> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 14 23:53:35 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:53:35 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching In-Reply-To: References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> Message-ID: Your statement: > "Yes. And there are those who believe that the implied violence of Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and others played a role also.? is correct, absolutely. > On Apr 14, 2020, at 16:47, John W. wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:08 PM Karen Aram > wrote: > > John > > If one only looks at the surface and assumes we can push Biden to do the right thing, if we continue to bend the knee to power, taking whatever crumbs of cake the ruling elites throw at us, it?s going to be very bloody. Wait until the economy crashes, crime escalates, gangs roam the streets as starving people become really angry. People are already dying in record numbers from the pandemic and our government owned by corporate capitalists. > > Why do you think FDR gave us the New Deal, because he?s a nice guy? He did it to save capitalism as he feared a revolution, due to the many people, workers, socialists etc. in the streets protesting, striking, sit downs etc. > > Well, I think he was probably a pretty nice guy, a person of genuine integrity, as was his wife. And yes, they were desperate times which called for desperate measures. Intelligent desperate measures. > > > Why did Johnson de-escalate the war in Vietnam 1968? Because the many people in the streets was an embarrassment internationally, for the ruling elites, and Johnson?s advisors. The revolt by the soldiers and veterans was the final step. > > Gandi utilized non violence and it was effective at driving out the British, but the people did take action, sit ins, strikes, blocking traffic, rail transport, putting their lives on the line. > > The civil rights movement, led by MLK, and started years before by CORE and others with sit-ins, is an example of that which works, with nonviolence. > > Yes. And there are those who believe that the implied violence of Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and others played a role also. > > > Why did Nixon end the draft, and give us the EPA? He feared the people in the streets, he feared a revolution. > > People don?t have healthcare, jobs, or a living wage, and the Democrat Party isn?t going to give us anything more than what Obama did, because the insurance cos. and pharma cos. own our government, along with our weapons manufacturers, oil cos. etc. > > More than they did in the FDR era? > > > As awful as Trump is, he isn?t the disease he is a symptom of the disease of rot and decay that is our system. > > That is true. He is a logical culmination of the disease that started at least with Reagan. So we need a cure for the disease. And that's what we need to be discussing. I'm not sure we quite agree on what the disease is, let alone how to eradicate it, but we would agree on most of the symptoms. But even that is just you and me and a few others. Many of our fellow citizens are still in elementary school, politically and philosophically. > > > Unless we have system change the decline will continue. Global warming and nuclear war are the two major threats facing us and the Democrat Party is doing nothing about it, or providing a veneer and watered down versions of what we need. > > Sadly, that's true. > > > We get a Democrat in power and the liberals all go to sleep, they only wake up when there is a Republican in power. Even then I have to ask what are they doing about anything, other than here in our own little community. We can put on our pink hats and get on buses to DC anytime the DNC provides us, and we feel insulted, or disrespected. Never mind, the people we have slaughtered in our eight wars in less than twenty years, they don?t count, they aren?t white and we only care about the people of color in our own neighborhood. > > We will only have system change when the people insist upon it by getting off the treadmill of insanity, expecting our corrupt electoral system to put in place another individual, who might be kinder to us, if we ask nicely. The Republican and Democrat Party?s both represent the ruling class and the working class ain?t a part of it. > > Again, the working class WAS a part of the equation with FDR, and with maybe a handful of other leaders. But overall, the poor are never, never, never on this earth going to be a major consideration for long. Hell, all most of them want to do is become the rich so that THEY can run things for their own advantage. > > > Violence occurs every day when our militarized police shoot us down in the streets, our incarceration of huge numbers of people, with our prison system of for profit, prevents many of the poor from rising up. And, our most profitable business next to financial services is weapons of destruction and war which will be worse, much worse under Biden, or anyone of the current system for that matter. > > The problem today, is we lack a strong labor movement, we have a lot of people who are unemployed thus lacking power. Which is why its up to the many Americans who are politically active to focus on what needs to be done, and its not focusing on elections. > > A strong labor movement again would certainly be nice. But that's only one factor. And when we DID have a strong labor movement, what were most of the rank and file union members doing? Certainly not advocating for radical change. They were not Dave Johnsons. Quite the contrary. They were luxuriating in their nice new mortgaged homes, driving their shiny cars, watching their color TV, consuming way too much useless crap while enjoying their newly-possible middle class lifestyle. No revolutionaries they! I know this intimately. I was there. I was one of them. > > > Occupy had the right idea, as to focus, and if they had been better organized, had stronger cohesive leadership, and a plan, they might not have given up so easily when the police dispersed them in Zukotti park. > > Well, that's what I've been waiting for my entire life - strong cohesive leadership, good organization, and a plan. Not seeing it, either inside or outside the Democratic party. > > Interestingly enough, the Koch-funded Tea Party Republicans HAVE had strong cohesive leadership, good organization, and a long-range plan for the past 40 years. They've worked the plan ruthlessly, but at the cost of their souls. Perhaps we should learn from them? > > John > > > >> On Apr 14, 2020, at 15:14, John W. > wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:15 PM Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >> >> My thoughts on one of the links: >> >> Aaron is a great journalist and interviewer, but Jimmy is a better analyst. >> >> Aaron?s suggestion of going with the lesser evil and pushing to the left is very disappointing given we don?t have time for that nonsense, people are dying without jobs, without housing, without healthcare, the last thing we need is another administration subject to the capitalist ruling elites. >> >> >> So four more years of tRump then, Karen? Or is now the time for that violent, bloody revolution we've been dreaming of our whole lives? >> >> >> >> The Intercept maybe good on domestic issues, but they lack credibility on foreign policy, which is critical, is one of the reasons I don?t pay much attention to them anymore. >> >> >> > On Apr 13, 2020, at 16:27, J.B. Nicholson via Peace > wrote: >> > >> > >> > and Aaron Mate is live now in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dETLYyxgP5g (archived copy is coming soon, no doubt). >> > >> > -J >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Peace mailing list >> > Peace at lists.chambana.net >> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Apr 15 00:22:41 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:22:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] What I glean from The Two Bruces In-Reply-To: References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <70df9f32-b852-a079-68a3-ff2c360c6d76@forestfield.org> Karen Aram wrote: > Aaron is a great journalist and interviewer, but Jimmy is a better analyst. > > Aaron?s suggestion of going with the lesser evil and pushing to the left is very > disappointing given we don?t have time for that nonsense, people are dying without > jobs, without housing, without healthcare, the last thing we need is another > administration subject to the capitalist ruling elites. I too hold Mate's work in high regard but I was surprised to hear Mate endorse lesser evilism (in what is now available as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45TnIAgfPRM). There's comparably bad rationale behind Mate's thinking in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkxPmgoktIw (about why Bernie Sanders' campaign "failed" or took a "nosedive" according to the following article which is discussed in this Dore video). Mate's penultimate sentence in that video sums up his take: > Aaron Mate: You vote for whoever is the least-worst and then you push them in the > direction you can. Dore seems to recognize that that mode of thinking got us to where we are and (as Dore has said before) when one does this, one gives up their only power and the candidate has no reason to listen to you afterwards. I find Mate's logic thoroughly unconvincing. I dare say a majority of registered US voters find it unconvincing too, hence the largest bloc of them didn't vote for US President in 2016 where Hillary Clinton was widely said to be the lesser evil (least-worst). I would not be surprised if we a large bloc of registered voters not vote for POTUS in this year's election either for this reason and due to COVID-19. I'm not convinced that Sanders' 2020 campaign failed. I'm convinced that that campaign succeeded at achieving different goals (goals Dore is rarely willing to bring up much less discuss in-depth). Therefore the article discussed in that video has it wrong. Politico author Holly Otterbein wrote: https://archive.md/r81zI -- read the article without Javascript or ads! https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/10/inside-bernies-sanders-campaign-nosedive-179576 > According to interviews with more than 20 of Sanders? aides, surrogates and top > allies, many believe he should have been more aggressive in taking on Biden, > including over the idea that he was more electable in November. They also > complained about the campaign?s organizing strategy and its inability to win over > black and senior voters. Though nearly everyone in Sanders? circle felt that the > media and political establishments played critical roles in taking him down, they > still think the nomination was in his reach. Dore claimed that the nomination was within Sanders' reach and Mate didn't object to either the article or Dore's claim. I say that the nomination was never in Sanders' reach for two reasons (from the two Bruces): 1. Per Bruce Spiva, DNC lawyer speaking to a court in his official capacity as that corporation's legal representative (see https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2020-February/051938.html for his quote which I often reference) against some disaffected Sanders 2012 campaigners who claim that the DNC cheated them: the decision of who shall be the DNC's standards bearer is up to the DNC corporation, not primary candidates nor primary voters. The so-called 'primary election' is merely theater. I'll add that without this distraction the DNC's freedom would be too obviously just another corporation picking its representative. So DNC elites are careful to construct a democratic-appearing process with enough safeguards in it to always produce an outcome which is amenable to the party bosses. 2. As the late Bruce Dixon explained in https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary years ago, Sanders is playing out the sheepdog role his campaign was intended to carry out. In the end Sanders would always throw the race: ditching Medicare for All, constantly complimenting Biden, and firmly backing Russiagate, as a few examples. Sanders would deliver his audience to the DNC who would pick up a "where else you gonna go?" mantra ("Maybe you have to swallow a little bit" of Joe Biden per his wife Dr. Jill Biden). I maintain that so much of what Sanders has done recently is done chiefly to keep in good stead with the Democratic Party. So of course "no one went for a knockout blow" (quoting that Politico article). The whole point was to use Sanders' commanding lead and vastly higher donations (Dore said Sanders raised more in one month than Biden raised in his entire 2020 campaign) to promote the DNC's reliable neocon/neolib insurance plan -- Biden. A lot follows from The Two Bruces which helps us put both of Sanders' recent campaigns into context including that it's silly to get caught up in counting votes, voting machine troubles, or delegates (as if they matter in corporate party primary races). It's wrong to look at any number of substantive bad Sanders campaign choices as "mistakes" (they weren't accidents). It's foolish to conclude that Sanders was "cheated" in 2016 or in 2020 -- a mistake I too have made. Spiva is clear: The DNC corporation is fully within its right to simply selecting a so-called 'nominee', standards bearer, and informing us all who that is. This means the DNC corporation is free to name literally anyone who agrees to take the role. Parties don't owe us democracy. The DNC is merely picking a corporate head. Or the DNC can set & change the rules for their chosen process at any time (hence shifting qualifications on which surveys to use for determining popularity, shifting amounts of money to set as minimum requirements for the next so-called "debate", etc. get bad press sometimes but ultimately are legal and also serve as a means test for would-be Democrats: how much are you going to let them push you and your favorite candidate around?). Aaron Mate is correct to point out that all of the media outlets Sanders would speak with are "class enemies" of those who supported Sanders. But the logical conclusion to draw from that is not to support lesser evilism, or to think that Sanders goofed in his campaign choices, but to understand that Sanders isn't stupid or foolish. Something else is up, and that something is the design Bruce Dixon told us about years ago. Even Dore tacitly admits this (while giving no credit to Dixon) in pointing out that Sanders is a sheepdog for the Dems and that Sanders fears being viewed the way the Dems unjustifiably view Ralph Nader -- with scorn and contempt. Karen Aram wrote: > The Intercept maybe good on domestic issues, but they lack credibility on foreign > policy, which is critical, is one of the reasons I don?t pay much attention to > them anymore. I don't read a lot of what The Intercept has published since they hired their current Editor-in-Chief, Betsy Reed, who strikes me as a neoliberal waste of time. Since Intercept hired Reed and some of their other authors, I've had to pare down my Intercept reading to only certain authors including Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang. A lot of the other authors strike me as no better than what I can find in the establishment-friendly and highly overrated New York Times. I lost a great deal of respect for The Intercept after how co-founder Laura Poitras left, how they handled the Snowden archive (closed it with far too little time for interested parties to make a backup), and how they chose to handle the leak attributed to Reality Winner (they gave an unredacted copy to the NSA which is indistinguishable from asking the NSA "Is this your document?"). These were choices and not mistakes. What happened to Reality Winner also serves as a clear signal to us all: if you have anything to leak to journalists, don't trust The Intercept. WikiLeaks has a far better record of properly handling leaks. From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Apr 15 00:34:20 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: 10 felony charges for exposing Planned Parenthood References: <1414238956.24700824.1586905898518.JavaMail.cloud@mta0204.messagegears.net> Message-ID: <570588BC-9D8E-485F-B3EE-19E239B604E7@newsfromneptune.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: The Babylon Bee > Subject: 10 felony charges for exposing Planned Parenthood > Date: April 14, 2020 at 6:11:38 PM CDT > To: carl at newsfromneptune.com > Reply-To: The Babylon Bee > > > Please read the message below from our paid sponsor. While the views of this sponsor don?t necessarily reflect those of the Babylon Bee, occasional paid messages like these help us continue bringing you the content you love. > > Dear Friend, > > I?ve got good news, bad news, and really bad news for the pro-life movement. > > The good news is the judge dismissed six of the fifteen felony criminal charges against pro-life citizen journalist David Daleiden stemming from his undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood, leaving him facing nine felony counts. > > The bad news is the California Attorney General added a tenth felony charge at David?s arraignment. > > And the really bad news is that David will stand trial before another San Francisco jury which will decide whether he spends a decade locked away in a state penitentiary. > > That's why I'm asking you to make an emergency donation to the Thomas More Society's DAVID DALEIDEN CRIMINAL DEFENSE FUND today. > > You see, we?re in real danger of jurors delivering Solomonic-type justice ? a ?split verdict? ? that would result in David spending time in a prison cell. > > Why? Because this young man had the courage to lead an undercover investigation that captured video evidence of the abortion goliath conspiring to illegally harvest and sell aborted baby body parts. > > Now we?re going to need to put on an over-the-top defense to make sure jurors are not pressured to ?compromise? and convict David of even one of the charges. > > So if you agree it?s absolutely outrageous that David is the one facing criminal charges and hard time in a state penitentiary ? rather than Planned Parenthood?s executives? > > ?then I pray you?ll make an emergency donation to help us defend David and other pro-life heroes today. > > My friend, the reality is... > > You couldn't be there when David entered the dark underbelly of the abortion industry ? sitting across the table from abortionists haggling over the price of baby body parts with cold-blooded clarity? The chilling words of one Planned Parenthood executive ? "I want a Lamborghini." ? are difficult to forget. > > You couldn't be there as David saw with his own eyes the preborn children who had been killed with great precision to preserve their organs for maximum profit. > > You couldn't be there when the videos were released and Planned Parenthood and their allies conspired to crush David with trumped up legal charges and an armed raid on his home in which they seized laptops, hard-drives, and recording equipment. > > And you couldn't be there with David when he appeared in both Texas and California for booking and processing ? fingerprinted and photographed for mug-shots like a common criminal. (But our criminal defense team was there!) > > But, now, this is the reality... there is something you can do to help vindicate this pro-life hero. > > My name is Tom Brejcha. I'm the President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Society ? a not-for-profit law firm underwriting and helping to spearhead David's civil and criminal defense. > > The Thomas More Society is proud to defend many of the most renowned leaders in America's pro-life movement ? because when dark forces like Planned Parenthood unleash their full might to legally, financially and personally destroy our clients ? we fight back. > > And I have to tell you, despite all that David is facing, his spirits remain high. Of course, I've never known anyone in this kind of position who didn't feel an empty pit in his stomach. > > But David's not giving up. And he never will do so! In fact, I know he sees this as yet another opportunity to drag more of Planned Parenthood's dark criminality into the spotlight. > > My friend, that's what David set out to do ? and that's what you and I can make sure he continues doing by winning this legal battle. > > Now I'll get right down to it... We anticipate David's legal defense will cost us more than $5,000,000. That's right, FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. > > You see, it's not just one legal battle we're fighting. Altogether David has been sued or prosecuted six times! Already we defeated a two-count felony and misdemeanor criminal case brought by the District Attorney of Harris County (Houston), Texas at the behest of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. And another nasty civil case brought by a baby body parts broker, Stem Express, in Los Angeles was dismissed. > > Right now we?re defending David in three other active cases. > > In one federal civil lawsuit, a jury just found David liable and awarded Planned Parenthood $1.4 million in damages on the RICO (racketeering) charges, $870,000 in punitive damages and the judge will presumably award millions more in attorneys? fees on top of that. > > In another lawsuit filed by the National Abortion Federation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling against us, refusing to lift the preliminary ?gag order? injunction prohibiting David from releasing more of his videos exposing the abortion giant's evil. > > David also faces another civil lawsuit filed by anonymous Planned Parenthood personnel in federal court in Seattle, Washington. We won our first appeal and now our second appeal in that case remains pending and undecided. > > But Planned Parenthood has millions of dollars to spend on lawyers and lobbyists ? and they'll stop at nothing to silence David and prevent the truth from coming out. > > That's why we urgently need your financial support today. > > And that's why I'm praying you will use this link to make an emergency contribution of $30 to the DAVID DALEIDEN CRIMINAL DEFENSE FUND. > > This truly is a "David versus Goliath" type of battle ? with Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, the Attorney General of California, and their allies all arrayed against our "David." > > It's a grave injustice that David is the one being hit with felony charges while Planned Parenthood (so far, at least) has gone unprosecuted and unpunished. > > But by clearing David of these charges... you and I can allow him to continue with his incredibly important life-saving work. > > So please make your emergency contribution of $30 or more today. > > I know David will be deeply touched and encouraged by your generous support. > > May God bless you, > > Tom Brejcha > President & Chief Counsel > > P.S Planned Parenthood and their allies want to destroy David. They'd love to see him rotting away in prison rather than exposing their criminal, ghoulish activities. You and I cannot let that happen. Can I count on you to support the official criminal defense of David Daleiden against the felony charges brought by the State of California? Please make your emergency contribution of $30 or more to stop this attempt to crush David Daleiden and all our other heroic pro-life clients. > Donate Now > > The Thomas More Society is a not-for-profit, national public interest law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. > > Please consider supporting our efforts with a generous, tax-deductible donation. > ? Thomas More Society | www.thomasmoresociety.org > 309 W. Washington Street Suite 1250, Chicago, IL 60606 > PO Box 546, Jupiter, FL 33468 > > If you no longer wish to receive sponsored promotional emails from us click here to unsubscribe. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Apr 15 06:18:48 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 01:18:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] How powerful is the fear of being smeared? In-Reply-To: <70df9f32-b852-a079-68a3-ff2c360c6d76@forestfield.org> References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> <70df9f32-b852-a079-68a3-ff2c360c6d76@forestfield.org> Message-ID: In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFkG8y57RP8 Aaron Mate talks about Democracy Now's lack of coverage of the OPCW leakers (now numbering 4) which get extensive coverage on The Grayzone but zero coverage in Democracy Now after May 2019. It's almost the 1-year anniversary since DN reported on https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/23/leaked_opcw_report_raises_new_questions discussing only one leaked report, and nothing on the other 3 leakers or the context that has irrevocably changed our view of that alleged gas attack in Douma, Syria. We've seen the self-styled 'war and peace report' go from "[leading] the way on pushing back on the Iraq war lies, [to] seeing them enrolled in pushing lies used to justify war on places like Syria" (quoting Aaron Mate from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFkG8y57RP8). Mate is referring to the aforementioned link which is DN's nearly year-old interview with Brian Whitaker who tries to minimize the first leaked OPCW report which contradicts the official OPCW report claiming there was a Douma, Syria gas attack. This alleged attack was used as the basis for a coordinated US, UK, and French missile attack into Douma. Following that shameful interview there's nothing from DN on the subsequent OPCW leaks which all contradict the OPCW's official report and thus undermine the subsequent coordinated missile attack. DN is promoting the very thing that entire newscast was ostensibly established to challenge, and this is one of the two main reasons Mate left DN (the other being DN's pro-Russiagate coverage which, by the way, is also pro-war as Russiagate claims are used to justify anti-Russian sanctions and sanctions are war). Why did DN change? The reason Mate gives as his "most charitable interpretation" as to why DN would fall so far going from anti-war to pro-war happens to be the same reason Sanders is said to obey the Democratic Party (serving now as their 2-time sheepdog) -- fear of being smeared. Here's Mate's complete quote on this: From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFkG8y57RP8 > Aaron Mate: I can speculate on the reasons, I just like to think that-- my best > interpretation-- my most charitable interpretation is that people are just > credulous and not thinking enough, and they're being intimidated by fear of being > smeared. And this is why I do what I do: is I want them to change, I want them to > remember who they are and what they're about. Same thing with The Intercept which > basically started with the leaks from Edward Snowden, a whistleblower. The > Intercept [has] always prided itself on championing whistleblowers, that's what > they do. Now where are they in relation to these two-- now four whistleblowers-- > but the two main ones, the inspectors who were involved in the Douma > investigation, why are they silent on these whistleblowers? And by the way, when > whistleblowers come forward, and even adversarial outlets are silent on them, > you're actually putting them in danger. There's a long history of whistleblowers > being bullied and what saves them is when there's light on the abuses that they're > blowing the whistle on. And when the media ignores their stories and their plight > it actually puts them in danger. In the case of the OPCW it's particularly serious > because there's a long history of the US bullying the OPCW and even threatening > people. So, for example, Jose Bustani, who was the OPCW's first Director-General, > there's a famous story and you can find it in Democracy Now or on The Intercept > where back when the Bush administration was going to war on Iraq, Jose Bustani was > the head of the OPCW and he was trying to push for inspections and the OPCW's > involvement. John Bolton, then serving under Bush, personally threatened Bustani > and his family saying 'we know where your kids live' and they successfully forced > Bustani out. And that also shut Bustani up for a while, though he's recently > started to tell his story a little bit more and there's-- you can go through case > by case. So when the media, in the face of seeing whistleblowers being intimidated > and whistleblowers being silenced, when the media goes along with it, it's > especially-- like whistleblowing advocates like [Deanna?] like the Intercept, it's > harmful to these whistleblowers' safety. It's really shameful. I'm gonna keep > calling it out until they change. I'm hopeful that they will. And as Jimmy Dore points out, DN is now "running a protection racket for progressive politicians instead of pressuring them and exposing them and making them do better, they're actually-- they [progressive politicians] know they can count on them [progressive news outlets] to lie for them just like Sean Hannity lies for Donald Trump which is really shocking to see.". The recent DN interview with 'squad' member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is a prime example where Rep. Omar acknowledges the harm the bailout bill will cause and then says she'll vote for it: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/27/rep_ilhan_omar_coronavirus_relief_bill > Rep. Ilhan Omar: [...] And I think this crisis and this pandemic really lays bare > the kind of inequalities that have existed for far too long in our country. And > the conversations we?re having right now as we put forth our third relief package > shows us that there is often a prioritization of corporate interests and often not > a prioritization of the interests of the people. > > So, today I plan on voting for this bill, not because it?s perfect or it?s > sufficient, but because I think, in a time where we are facing one of the largest > crises we?ve faced in our country, it?s going to be really important for us to do > everything that we can to protect the lives and the livelihoods of the people of > this country. My home state, just in 10 days, there has been 165,000 people who > filed for unemployment insurance. And nationwide, as you said, it?s 3.3 million. > And so we have to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to deliver > relief. Goodman offered no objections in response. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 15 17:21:19 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching In-Reply-To: References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <008f01d6134a$4799ae90$d6cd0bb0$@comcast.net> John, Your statement and analysis is absolutely FANTASTIC ! I am sorry to say that a lot of the negative you detail is true, but accurate nevertheless. You should post this on Facebook. Yours in admiration David Johnson From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 6:54 PM To: John W. Cc: Peace Discuss; J.B. Nicholson; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching Your statement: "Yes. And there are those who believe that the implied violence of Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and others played a role also.? is correct, absolutely. On Apr 14, 2020, at 16:47, John W. wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:08 PM Karen Aram wrote: John If one only looks at the surface and assumes we can push Biden to do the right thing, if we continue to bend the knee to power, taking whatever crumbs of cake the ruling elites throw at us, it?s going to be very bloody. Wait until the economy crashes, crime escalates, gangs roam the streets as starving people become really angry. People are already dying in record numbers from the pandemic and our government owned by corporate capitalists. Why do you think FDR gave us the New Deal, because he?s a nice guy? He did it to save capitalism as he feared a revolution, due to the many people, workers, socialists etc. in the streets protesting, striking, sit downs etc. Well, I think he was probably a pretty nice guy, a person of genuine integrity, as was his wife. And yes, they were desperate times which called for desperate measures. Intelligent desperate measures. Why did Johnson de-escalate the war in Vietnam 1968? Because the many people in the streets was an embarrassment internationally, for the ruling elites, and Johnson?s advisors. The revolt by the soldiers and veterans was the final step. Gandi utilized non violence and it was effective at driving out the British, but the people did take action, sit ins, strikes, blocking traffic, rail transport, putting their lives on the line. The civil rights movement, led by MLK, and started years before by CORE and others with sit-ins, is an example of that which works, with nonviolence. Yes. And there are those who believe that the implied violence of Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and others played a role also. Why did Nixon end the draft, and give us the EPA? He feared the people in the streets, he feared a revolution. People don?t have healthcare, jobs, or a living wage, and the Democrat Party isn?t going to give us anything more than what Obama did, because the insurance cos. and pharma cos. own our government, along with our weapons manufacturers, oil cos. etc. More than they did in the FDR era? As awful as Trump is, he isn?t the disease he is a symptom of the disease of rot and decay that is our system. That is true. He is a logical culmination of the disease that started at least with Reagan. So we need a cure for the disease. And that's what we need to be discussing. I'm not sure we quite agree on what the disease is, let alone how to eradicate it, but we would agree on most of the symptoms. But even that is just you and me and a few others. Many of our fellow citizens are still in elementary school, politically and philosophically. Unless we have system change the decline will continue. Global warming and nuclear war are the two major threats facing us and the Democrat Party is doing nothing about it, or providing a veneer and watered down versions of what we need. Sadly, that's true. We get a Democrat in power and the liberals all go to sleep, they only wake up when there is a Republican in power. Even then I have to ask what are they doing about anything, other than here in our own little community. We can put on our pink hats and get on buses to DC anytime the DNC provides us, and we feel insulted, or disrespected. Never mind, the people we have slaughtered in our eight wars in less than twenty years, they don?t count, they aren?t white and we only care about the people of color in our own neighborhood. We will only have system change when the people insist upon it by getting off the treadmill of insanity, expecting our corrupt electoral system to put in place another individual, who might be kinder to us, if we ask nicely. The Republican and Democrat Party?s both represent the ruling class and the working class ain?t a part of it. Again, the working class WAS a part of the equation with FDR, and with maybe a handful of other leaders. But overall, the poor are never, never, never on this earth going to be a major consideration for long. Hell, all most of them want to do is become the rich so that THEY can run things for their own advantage. Violence occurs every day when our militarized police shoot us down in the streets, our incarceration of huge numbers of people, with our prison system of for profit, prevents many of the poor from rising up. And, our most profitable business next to financial services is weapons of destruction and war which will be worse, much worse under Biden, or anyone of the current system for that matter. The problem today, is we lack a strong labor movement, we have a lot of people who are unemployed thus lacking power. Which is why its up to the many Americans who are politically active to focus on what needs to be done, and its not focusing on elections. A strong labor movement again would certainly be nice. But that's only one factor. And when we DID have a strong labor movement, what were most of the rank and file union members doing? Certainly not advocating for radical change. They were not Dave Johnsons. Quite the contrary. They were luxuriating in their nice new mortgaged homes, driving their shiny cars, watching their color TV, consuming way too much useless crap while enjoying their newly-possible middle class lifestyle. No revolutionaries they! I know this intimately. I was there. I was one of them. Occupy had the right idea, as to focus, and if they had been better organized, had stronger cohesive leadership, and a plan, they might not have given up so easily when the police dispersed them in Zukotti park. Well, that's what I've been waiting for my entire life - strong cohesive leadership, good organization, and a plan. Not seeing it, either inside or outside the Democratic party. Interestingly enough, the Koch-funded Tea Party Republicans HAVE had strong cohesive leadership, good organization, and a long-range plan for the past 40 years. They've worked the plan ruthlessly, but at the cost of their souls. Perhaps we should learn from them? John On Apr 14, 2020, at 15:14, John W. wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:15 PM Karen Aram via Peace wrote: My thoughts on one of the links: Aaron is a great journalist and interviewer, but Jimmy is a better analyst. Aaron?s suggestion of going with the lesser evil and pushing to the left is very disappointing given we don?t have time for that nonsense, people are dying without jobs, without housing, without healthcare, the last thing we need is another administration subject to the capitalist ruling elites. So four more years of tRump then, Karen? Or is now the time for that violent, bloody revolution we've been dreaming of our whole lives? The Intercept maybe good on domestic issues, but they lack credibility on foreign policy, which is critical, is one of the reasons I don?t pay much attention to them anymore. > On Apr 13, 2020, at 16:27, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > > > and Aaron Mate is live now in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dETLYyxgP5g (archived copy is coming soon, no doubt). > > -J > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 15 19:08:07 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:08:07 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching In-Reply-To: <008f01d6134a$4799ae90$d6cd0bb0$@comcast.net> References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> <008f01d6134a$4799ae90$d6cd0bb0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: David, you maybe referring to my statement below in reference to John?s snarky comment: >>> >>> So four more years of tRump then, Karen? Or is now the time for that violent, bloody revolution we?ve been dreaming of our whole lives? If one only looks at the surface and assumes we can push Biden to do the right thing, if we continue to bend the knee to power, taking whatever crumbs of cake the ruling elites throw at us, it?s going to be very bloody. Wait until the economy crashes, crime escalates, gangs roam the streets as starving people become really angry. People are already dying in record numbers from the pandemic and our government owned by corporate capitalists. Why do you think FDR gave us the New Deal, because he?s a nice guy? He did it to save capitalism as he feared a revolution, due to the many people, workers, socialists etc. in the streets protesting, striking, sit downs etc. Why did Johnson de-escalate the war in Vietnam 1968? Because the many people in the streets was an embarrassment internationally, for the ruling elites, and Johnson?s advisors. The revolt by the soldiers and veterans was the final step. Gandi utilized non violence and it was effective at driving out the British, but the people did take action, sit ins, strikes, blocking traffic, rail transport, putting their lives on the line. The civil rights movement, led by MLK, and started years before by CORE and others with sit-ins, is an example of that which works, with nonviolence. Why did Nixon end the draft, and give us the EPA? He feared the people in the streets, he feared a revolution. People don?t have healthcare, jobs, or a living wage, and the Democrat Party isn?t going to give us anything more than what Obama did, because the insurance cos. and pharma cos. own our government, along with our weapons manufacturers, oil cos. etc. As awful as Trump is, he isn?t the disease he is a symptom of the disease of rot and decay that is our system. Unless we have system change the decline will continue. Global warming and nuclear war are the two major threats facing us and the Democrat Party is doing nothing about it, or providing a veneer and watered down versions of what we need. We get a Democrat in power and the liberals all go to sleep, they only wake up when there is a Republican in power. Even then I have to ask what are they doing about anything, other than here in our own little community. We can put on our pink hats and get on buses to DC anytime the DNC provides us, and we feel insulted, or disrespected. Never mind, the people we have slaughtered in our eight wars in less than twenty years, they don?t count, they aren?t white and we only care about the people of color in our own neighborhood. We will only have system change when the people insist upon it by getting off the treadmill of insanity, expecting our corrupt electoral system to put in place another individual, who might be kinder to us, if we ask nicely. The Republican and Democrat Party?s both represent the ruling class and the working class ain?t apart of it. Violence occurs every day when our militarized police shoot us down in the streets, our incarceration of huge numbers of people, with our prison system of for profit, prevents many of the poor from rising up. And, our most profitable business next to financial services is weapons of destruction and war which will be worse, much worse under Biden, or anyone of the current system for that matter. The problem today, is we lack a strong labor movement, we have a lot of people who are unemployed thus lacking power. Which is why its up to the many Americans who are politically active to focus on what needs to be done, and its not focusing on elections. Occupy had the right idea, as to focus, and if they had been better organized, had stronger cohesive leadership, and a plan, they might not have given up so easily when the police dispersed them in Zukotti park. Karen Aram > On Apr 15, 2020, at 10:21, David Johnson wrote: > > John, > > Your statement and analysis is absolutely FANTASTIC ! > > I am sorry to say that a lot of the negative you detail is true, but accurate nevertheless. > > You should post this on Facebook. > > Yours in admiration > > David Johnson > > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 6:54 PM > To: John W. > Cc: Peace Discuss; J.B. Nicholson; Peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] Mark Blyth interviews on Jimmy Dore are well worth watching > > > Your statement: > > "Yes. And there are those who believe that the implied violence of Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and others played a role also.? > is correct, absolutely. > > > > > On Apr 14, 2020, at 16:47, John W. > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:08 PM Karen Aram > wrote: > >> John >> >> If one only looks at the surface and assumes we can push Biden to do the right thing, if we continue to bend the knee to power, taking whatever crumbs of cake the ruling elites throw at us, it?s going to be very bloody. Wait until the economy crashes, crime escalates, gangs roam the streets as starving people become really angry. People are already dying in record numbers from the pandemic and our government owned by corporate capitalists. >> >> Why do you think FDR gave us the New Deal, because he?s a nice guy? He did it to save capitalism as he feared a revolution, due to the many people, workers, socialists etc. in the streets protesting, striking, sit downs etc. > > Well, I think he was probably a pretty nice guy, a person of genuine integrity, as was his wife. And yes, they were desperate times which called for desperate measures. Intelligent desperate measures. > > >> Why did Johnson de-escalate the war in Vietnam 1968? Because the many people in the streets was an embarrassment internationally, for the ruling elites, and Johnson?s advisors. The revolt by the soldiers and veterans was the final step. >> >> Gandi utilized non violence and it was effective at driving out the British, but the people did take action, sit ins, strikes, blocking traffic, rail transport, putting their lives on the line. >> >> The civil rights movement, led by MLK, and started years before by CORE and others with sit-ins, is an example of that which works, with nonviolence. > > Yes. And there are those who believe that the implied violence of Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and others played a role also. > > >> Why did Nixon end the draft, and give us the EPA? He feared the people in the streets, he feared a revolution. >> >> People don?t have healthcare, jobs, or a living wage, and the Democrat Party isn?t going to give us anything more than what Obama did, because the insurance cos. and pharma cos. own our government, along with our weapons manufacturers, oil cos. etc. > > More than they did in the FDR era? > > > > > > >>> >>> >>> So four more years of tRump then, Karen? Or is now the time for that violent, bloody revolution we've been dreaming of our whole lives? >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 15 22:33:44 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:33:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Organizing for a Rent Freeze in CU and Illinois Message-ID: <003d01d61375$ec79b970$c56d2c50$@comcast.net> Organizing for a Rent Freeze in CU and Illinois Posted on April 2020 by Amina Malik and Heather Aubry http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/rentfreeze-1024x681.jpg Why is a rent freeze necessary? The global pandemic which resulted from COVID-19 drastically affects the employment status of millions of workers in the United States and the wider world. As advised by the Center for Disease Control and The World Health Organization, it is necessary to physically distance oneself from the public. Specifically in Champaign-Urbana, these orders, which are important to adhere to, have led to the increase in unemployment status for residents. Meaning, their employers are no longer able to support them in the looming recession. Residents who are not receiving hazard pay, or do not have the option to work remotely, are faced with the financial burden of making rent. Currently, any sort of rent control is impossible because of the 1997 Rent Control Preemption Act that bans rent control in Illinois. Making a rent freeze impossible without it being repealed. On April 7th however, Lift the Ban Coalition, a coalition based in Chicago that is advocating for economic well-being and stability for Illinois' families released a 7 page breaking memo from the Law Offices of Despres, Schwartz, and Geoghegan. The memo stated, "Governor Pritzker's powers under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act and other laws grant him sufficient power to provide relief, including by either mitigating the cost of rent during the crisis directly or by empowering municipalities to do so." Link to the memo and the Lift the Ban announcement can be found in the Legal section of our website, rentfreezenow.weebly.com. We are now demanding Governor Pritzker to use his emergency powers to issue a freeze on rent indefinitely for all people in Illinois until the threat from COVID-19 has passed. This means suspending Illinoisans' responsibility towards rent until people are safely able to return to work and until they are able to make up the financial loss faced during this pandemic. To provide a clearer timeline, this means a complete suspension of rent payments until the stay at home order is lifted and for at least 2 months after to allow people time to get back on their feet. Our demands are as follows: * The repeal of the 1997 Rent Control Preemption Act and the utilization of emergency powers by Governor Pritzker. This will allow for municipalities to enact, maintain or enforce measures that control the amount of rent charged for leasing a residential property, facilitating a freeze in rents. * We demand the suspension of all rental, mortgage, utility bills, court fines, civic fees, and property tax payments in the Champaign-Urbana area until the crisis has passed. This must be applicable to all individuals and small businesses. That does not mean a deferment or payment plan. It means cancellation of all aforementioned debts incurred throughout the crisis. * Immediate stoppage and abolition of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and youth detention programs. Release of at-risk prisoners detained in city and state jails and prisons. Not having the money to afford bail is only worsened in times such as these along with these centers harboring COVID-19 cases. The funds currently spent on those programs should be re-allocated towards creating a more comprehensive relief program FOR THE PEOPLE NOT CORPORATIONS. Resources Since this crisis is affecting thousands of people residing in the Champaign-Urbana community, such as students, researchers, service workers and all those who lost jobs due to the crisis, it only makes sense to gather collectively to demand a freeze on rent. One way to support is to sign our Champaign-Urbana Rent Freeze petition, which can be found on our website, https://rentfreezenow.weebly.com/. Our website has the option to connect with fellow tenants, information for virtual meetings, and our Organizer Interest Forms, and is open to all. In addition, our website includes our sample letters tenants can send to landlords, sample letters to fellow tenants, and instruction on applying for relief funds, which include the United Way COVID-19 Relief Fund, the NAWC Immigrant Relief Fund, and the One Fair Emergency Relief Fund. Many people are also wary of the legal repercussions of not paying rent during this time. The current moratorium on evictions in Champaign County makes it so landlords can still file for eviction, the case will just not go through until the moratorium is passed. It is, however, illegal for your landlord to lock you out. The full eviction court process is listed below, courtesy of the Autonomous Tenants Union in Chicago. * The full Eviction Court process, from the filing to the Sheriff changing your locks, can take anywhere between 2-8 months. You can take steps to lengthen it. The landlord cannot accept rent during the full court process, or they have to start over. * Court dates are typically scheduled at least two weeks after the filing of the lawsuit, sometimes more. The order from the Chief Judge will probably delay this timeline. * A Sheriff will come to your door to serve you court papers (the summons to court, court date, and the lawsuit's complaint). Don't freak out if they come knocking forcefully, they're just there to serve you papers, not evict you! If they can't put the court papers in your hand, they have to reschedule another court date another 2 weeks out, and try to re-serve you. * At your first court date, you can show up yourself and ask for a continuance to find an attorney, typically getting another week. * After this, we highly recommend you get a lawyer (ATU and other orgs may be able to help). The court process will likely come to a conclusion much sooner if you don't have a lawyer. If you have a lawyer, the process could go on for months more. * You can also, on your own, file for a Jury Demand & usually get a Fee Waiver, typically getting another 3 weeks (more resources will be provided here soon). * The court process ends in an "Order of Possession" which the landlord can take to the Sheriff to officially evict you. The Sheriff's job is to remove you from your home and change the locks. By organizing with your neighbors and support networks to reach an agreement with the landlord, you can better ensure that you won't get to this point in the process. Reach out to our Instagram or email so we can try to get you connected with fellow tenants. Organize with us! One of the best ways to get involved is to gather together fellow tenants to strike collectively. Information regarding organizing tenants can be found on our website, and we also encourage you to reach out to our email curentfreeze at gmail.com. Reaching out opens up the opportunity to match you up with more tenants underneath the same Landlord. Following us on our instagram, @cu_rentfreeze is a good way to get quick updates and see what we're doing day-to-day to organize. Helpful information from other rent strikes is also shared to our instagram. One of the best ways to participate is by getting involved in our phone zaps. These zaps are 3 hour segments intended to create a surge of phone calls into the elected officials office that has the power to make change. It is a way to create noise around an issue we want changed. Phone Zaps will be occurring from 11am to 3pm Monday - Friday for the rest of April to put pressure on Governor Pritzker and our local representatives to use their emergency powers to put a freeze on rents. A script and phone numbers can be found below. http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/rent-freeze-cu-1024x1024 .jpg http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/93441622_227018395307051 _5840986464057294848_n.jpg Information and a Script to use to Contact State Representative Carol Ammons about the issue http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/unnamed-1024x754.jpg Phone Zapping script for calling Governor Pritzker's Office -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28968 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 22481 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54018 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 46969 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Thu Apr 16 02:41:19 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 02:41:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky Message-ID: A Chomsky monologue. Says interesting things, much of what he?s elucidated before, but avoids talking about the coming elections, yet says that if Trump is reelected it will be a catastrope for us all. https://therealnews.com/stories/noam-chomsky-book-covid-19-coronavirus-internationalism-extinction-donald-trump-authoritarianism-neoliberalism-capitalism Keep fighting is his message. I?m not sure that he?s facing the current political reality, yet while emphasizing the gravity of our current condition. He has his usual sanguine approach to possibilities. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 16 15:22:34 2020 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Preaching to the choir References: <1955048785.1574090.1587050554263.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1955048785.1574090.1587050554263@mail.yahoo.com> All these years Peace-discuss could have been building an internet presence, but no, you just want to preach to the choir.Here are the latest traffic results for NewsFollowUp.com??for one day. 5,384 pages total per day.? (it ranges generally between 3500-6000....that's well over one million page views per year. If just one hundred people did this, they could cover the entire population of the US in one year. notice that 1,075 pages went to China... The authenticity of this report is available upon demand. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1587050316246blob.jpg Type: image/png Size: 94690 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Apr 17 01:25:25 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 20:25:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] DNC corporation primary voting results in 1 known death in Chicago so far In-Reply-To: <0a1acacd-8827-1074-2be5-9d8ef31af168@forestfield.org> References: <0a1acacd-8827-1074-2be5-9d8ef31af168@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <29005b9d-d8b6-6d22-ec15-5459a15d44f3@forestfield.org> I wrote: > Democratic primary voters were recently compelled to choose between risking > contracting Coronavirus or voting in that primary (a clear sign showing that the > Democratic Party doesn't care about your life and all but nullifying any argument > against what Trump said about Coronavirus/"Coronaflu" as Trump tried to minimize > it). And now we have some results from the Democratic Party primary where multiple prominent Democrats urged people to vote in Illinois in their party primary: https://nypost.com/2020/04/14/chicago-voters-warned-after-poll-worker-dies-from-coronavirus/ > Chicago election officials are warning primary voters of possible exposure to the > coronavirus after a city poll worker died from the bug and a voter became > infected, according to reports. > > The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners is notifying voters by letter who cast > ballots at four locations citywide during last month?s Illinois primary, the > Chicago Tribune reports. > > The 60-year-old poll worker who passed away, Revall Burke, was stationed at the > Zion Hill Baptist Church during the Illinois primary on March 17. He died of > COVID-19 on April 1, just over two weeks later, WMAQ reports. > > Letters will now be sent to all poll workers from that location, as well as people > who voted there, field investigators and cartage company employees, the station > reports. > > ?Although the Board took every precaution possible by supplying poll workers with > hand sanitizers, gloves and instructions for wiping down the equipment, the fact > remains that an individual who has now tested positive voted at the same Polling > Place,? the letter reads. "Every possible precaution" except telling people that their lives are worth more than sating the DNC corporation's greed. Sen. Sanders' campaign manager (in front of Sanders in a video chat), Biden (via Twitter), and DNC Chair Tom Perez each encouraged voting in Illinois in the Democratic Party primary. https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-chicago-poll-worker-dies-covid-cornavirus-20200413-rz55vqpo6jfbxn7e4i6vkj6n2y-story.html covers Revall Burke's death as well. Before you conclude that the DNC's choices only hurt Burke and his loved ones, consider that people who participated in that primary voting (in any capacity) could be infected and spread COVID-19. The decision to insist on this mass gathering could have hurt or killed more than we know. It's not clear how many confirmed COVID-19 cases (now up to 25,733[1]) are attributable to the Democratic Party but it seems right and proper to me to blame that party for helping to spread the infection during a time when it was clear that we were all supposed to be keeping our distance from one another ("social distancing") and only leave home for important necessities (such as groceries and medicine). We were clearly not supposed to engage in an unnecessary exercise where the outcome was already widely known -- Biden already had the party primary cinched up (going by the capricious DNC rules) by the Illinois' election date. In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reya4KA-lP8 Kit Cabello reports that there were also unsanitary conditions at the polling places: "people were jam packed together, the lines were long, there was not that 6-foot distance that's mandatory now that people are doing where you hear in grocery stores. People were close.". [1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-viz-coronavirus-cases-in-illinois-20200304-wz44mgw6wrd5zmzngx4kc3z6a4-htmlstory.html From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 12:33:58 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:33:58 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?QW4g4oCcQXJteSBvZiBPbmXigJ0gdG8gSGVh?= =?utf-8?q?l_and_Educate=2C_Build_and_Fix?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10159407472617656 An ?Army of One? to Heal and Educate, Build and Fix Reflecting again on how Harold Diamond ?tricked? me into going to graduate school by giving me a Special Problem to solve opened up a flood of other memories: times in my life when a male teacher or other male authority figure - always a man - helped me by giving me a Special Assignment to complete. When I look at my younger self now through the eyes of these men, I see an angry young man sporting a particular scar that these men recognized. ?Ah, yes. Yet another angry young man sporting THAT scar. Come here now, angry young man. I have a Special Assignment for you to complete. This Special Assignment is only for you. When you have completed the Special Assignment, come back and receive my praise.? When I think now about how these men helped me, the word ?grateful? doesn?t begin to cut it. I?m 100% sure that I would be dead or in prison if I had never received this aid. So to say that I?m grateful for that aid would give new meaning to the word ?understatement.? But here?s what makes me angry. I?m quite certain that in every generation there are a whole bunch of angry young men in America sporting this particular scar. And I?m quite certain that a bunch of these young men are actively recruited to join the U.S. military, because they?re looking for a do-over, a male authority figure that they can trust, unlike the first one they had. It?s the Abuse Victim Draft. I considered joining it myself, many times, even though I was against U.S. wars and against U.S. imperialism. That?s how desperate I felt to escape from the abusive authority of my father. When I see a flag-draped casket at Dover Air Force Base, I think: that could easily have been me. Sometimes when the U.S. military wants to offload responsibility for PTSD among veterans, it says: some of these people had these psychological problems before they joined the U.S. military. Good job, Brownie. Like you didn?t know you were actively targeting this vulnerable population in your recruitment efforts. This dynamic wouldn?t bother me at all if it were the job of the U.S. military to heal and educate people and build and fix things. If that were so, I would think that it was great. Collect all the angry young men of America into an Army to heal and educate, build and fix. Fantastic. Sign. Me. Up. Draft me and enlist me now for that project. But the job of the U.S. military is to kill people and blow things up. Including in wars that are not justifiable based on the interests of the American people, still less based on the interests of the brown and black people who live in the countries where the wars takes place. Some of these young men are killed in these wars, some of them are physically maimed, and some of them are psychologically maimed. And I?m quite certain that some of the psychologically maiming happens when some of these young men realize in horror how they?ve been abused a second time in the place where they sought refuge from the first abuse. When I think about how the U.S. military is taking advantage of these vulnerable young men ? all of my brothers ? ?an army of one,? ?the toughest job you?ll ever love? ? with the enabling of the democratically elected United States Congress, the universe can?t hold my howl. I waited my whole life to feel strong enough to sit fully with this howl. When John Lennon wrote ?Imagine,? he sang about the ?brotherhood of man.? When Lee Hays of the Weavers wrote ?If I Had a Hammer,? he pledged he would hammer out love between all of his brothers, if only he had the hammer to do so. We don?t talk like this now because this language is not considered politically correct, because it doesn?t explicitly include women. But canceling the phrase ?brotherhood of man? cancels a key idea. Our sisters didn?t start the war. Our brothers started the war. Our brothers can stop the war. If rape is a men?s problem, then war is a men?s problem. We need to hammer out love between all of our brothers so our brothers will stop the war. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 17:27:36 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:27:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?QW4g4oCcQXJteSBvZiBPbmXigJ0gdG8gSGVh?= =?utf-8?q?l_and_Educate=2C_Build_and_Fix?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This relevant, 12-page collection of responses to Francis Fukuyama in 1999, in *Foreign Affairs *of all places, begins with one from the estimable Barbara Ehrenreich, based on her research for the 1997 book *Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War.* http://users.metu.edu.tr/utuba/Ehrenreich%20etal.pdf On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:34 AM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10159407472617656 > > An ?Army of One? to Heal and Educate, Build and Fix > > Reflecting again on how Harold Diamond ?tricked? me into going to graduate > school by giving me a Special Problem to solve opened up a flood of other > memories: times in my life when a male teacher or other male authority > figure - always a man - helped me by giving me a Special Assignment to > complete. When I look at my younger self now through the eyes of these men, > I see an angry young man sporting a particular scar that these men > recognized. ?Ah, yes. Yet another angry young man sporting THAT scar. Come > here now, angry young man. I have a Special Assignment for you to complete. > This Special Assignment is only for you. When you have completed the > Special Assignment, come back and receive my praise.? When I think now > about how these men helped me, the word ?grateful? doesn?t begin to cut it. > I?m 100% sure that I would be dead or in prison if I had never received > this aid. So to say that I?m grateful for that aid would give new meaning > to the word ?understatement.? > > But here?s what makes me angry. I?m quite certain that in every generation > there are a whole bunch of angry young men in America sporting this > particular scar. And I?m quite certain that a bunch of these young men are > actively recruited to join the U.S. military, because they?re looking for a > do-over, a male authority figure that they can trust, unlike the first one > they had. It?s the Abuse Victim Draft. I considered joining it myself, many > times, even though I was against U.S. wars and against U.S. imperialism. > That?s how desperate I felt to escape from the abusive authority of my > father. When I see a flag-draped casket at Dover Air Force Base, I think: > that could easily have been me. Sometimes when the U.S. military wants to > offload responsibility for PTSD among veterans, it says: some of these > people had these psychological problems before they joined the U.S. > military. Good job, Brownie. Like you didn?t know you were actively > targeting this vulnerable population in your recruitment efforts. > > This dynamic wouldn?t bother me at all if it were the job of the U.S. > military to heal and educate people and build and fix things. If that were > so, I would think that it was great. Collect all the angry young men of > America into an Army to heal and educate, build and fix. Fantastic. Sign. > Me. Up. Draft me and enlist me now for that project. But the job of the > U.S. military is to kill people and blow things up. Including in wars that > are not justifiable based on the interests of the American people, still > less based on the interests of the brown and black people who live in the > countries where the wars takes place. Some of these young men are killed in > these wars, some of them are physically maimed, and some of them are > psychologically maimed. And I?m quite certain that some of the > psychologically maiming happens when some of these young men realize in > horror how they?ve been abused a second time in the place where they sought > refuge from the first abuse. > > When I think about how the U.S. military is taking advantage of these > vulnerable young men ? all of my brothers ? ?an army of one,? ?the toughest > job you?ll ever love? ? with the enabling of the democratically elected > United States Congress, the universe can?t hold my howl. I waited my whole > life to feel strong enough to sit fully with this howl. > > When John Lennon wrote ?Imagine,? he sang about the ?brotherhood of man.? > When Lee Hays of the Weavers wrote ?If I Had a Hammer,? he pledged he would > hammer out love between all of his brothers, if only he had the hammer to > do so. We don?t talk like this now because this language is not considered > politically correct, because it doesn?t explicitly include women. But > canceling the phrase ?brotherhood of man? cancels a key idea. Our sisters > didn?t start the war. Our brothers started the war. Our brothers can stop > the war. If rape is a men?s problem, then war is a men?s problem. We need > to hammer out love between all of our brothers so our brothers will stop > the 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 jbn at forestfield.org Fri Apr 17 23:36:37 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] What I glean from The Two Bruces In-Reply-To: <70df9f32-b852-a079-68a3-ff2c360c6d76@forestfield.org> References: <8ba90a7f-8140-6201-5032-ba70785e9400@forestfield.org> <70df9f32-b852-a079-68a3-ff2c360c6d76@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <9733df8b-033e-de08-afd0-dac53ed4d0c1@forestfield.org> I wrote: > 2. As the late Bruce Dixon explained in > https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary years ago, > Sanders is playing out the sheepdog role his campaign was intended to carry out. In > the end Sanders would always throw the race: ditching Medicare for All, constantly > complimenting Biden, and firmly backing Russiagate, as a few examples. Sanders would > deliver his audience to the DNC who would pick up a "where else you gonna go?" mantra > ("Maybe you have to swallow a little bit" of Joe Biden per his wife Dr. Jill Biden). > I maintain that so much of what Sanders has done recently is done chiefly to keep in > good stead with the Democratic Party. > > So of course "no one went for a knockout blow" (quoting that Politico article). The > whole point was to use Sanders' commanding lead and vastly higher donations (Dore > said Sanders raised more in one month than Biden raised in his entire 2020 campaign) > to promote the DNC's reliable neocon/neolib insurance plan -- Biden. Black Agenda Report (highly recommended reading, by the way) -- https://www.blackagendareport.com/ -- mentioned Dixon's prescience too: https://www.blackagendareport.com/end-sanders-and-maybe-beginning-mass-independent-left > Sanders punked out early this time around, with language as contradictory and > dishonest on-its-face as Trump-speak. ?I will stay on the ballot in all remaining > states and continue to gather delegates,? said Sanders in his surrender > statement[1]. ?While Vice President Biden will be the nominee, we must continue > working to assemble as many delegates as possible at the Democratic convention.? > But of course, you cannot keep piling up significant votes and delegates while > simultaneously conceding victory to a corporate flunky ? thus making Sanders?s > ?suspended? campaign unfit for even ?protest? votes. > > For the second time in two presidential cycles, Sanders has lived up to Bruce > Dixon?s depiction of him as a ?sheepdog? for the Democrats. ?Sheepdogs are > herders,? wrote Dixon, the BAR co-founder who died last June, ?and the sheepdog > candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic > fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic Party, > either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.? > That?s Sanders to a T. > > Sanders bowed out of the race the minute his momentum stalled, at the very same > time that the greatest combined health and economic calamity in U.S. history was > gripping the nation by the throat ? a teaching moment if one ever existed, if > health care and economic inequality were really Sanders? top priority. He did > acknowledge the ballooning crisis: ?In terms of health care, this current, > horrific crisis that we are now in has exposed for all to see how absurd our > current employer-based health insurance system is. The current economic downturn > we are experiencing has not only led to a massive loss of jobs but has also > resulted in millions of Americans losing their health insurance.? [1] https://portside.org/node/22615/printable/print or https://archive.md/vVb1y (archived copy since these campaign posts typically don't stick around long after the campaign has ended but this document will be useful long after this campaign is over) From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Apr 18 14:47:57 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:47:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Draft LCSP statement on proposed Congressional emergency healthcare relief legislation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003601d61590$5a5608b0$0f021a10$@comcast.net> The quote below ( from the Labor Campaign for Single Payer ) reinforces my original hesitation to support the Health Care Guarantee Act, as well as other ? Band Aids ? the Neo-Liberal corporate Democrats are trying to use on the gaping wound that is our dysfunctional and BARBARIC healthcare system. WE need to DEMAND that all our elected politicians in the U.S. Congress co-sponsor and pass the Medicare 4 All Bills in the U.S. House ( HR 1383 ) and in the U.S. Senate ( S- 1129 ) NOW ! No half ass market based corporate substitutes. ? it is central to our mission to also point out that this legislation is insufficient to meet the needs of America's workers and their families and that Congress is missing out on a major opportunity to put us on the path to Medicare for All as we seek to emerge from this crisis and build a more just society. ? Labor Campaign for Single-Payer To: LCSP National Advisory Board and National Steering Committee From: Mark Dudzic, National Coordinator Consistent with our discussion on last month's Steering Committee call, we have been advocating that Congress pass an emergency expansion of Medicare as part of the next round of emergency relief legislation. On April 10, Sen. Sanders and Rep. Jayapal introduced the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act which, while not a full-blown Medicare expansion, would insure that everyone in America would have adequate healthcare coverage with no financial barriers to care for the duration of the pandemic crisis. The Bill would also rein in Big Pharma profiteering by empowering Medicare to provide drugs and medical devices at the same rate paid by the VA. On April 14, Reps. Scott, Horsford and Dingell, with the support of Speaker Pelosi, introduced the Worker Health Coverage Protection Act . This Bill would provide a 100% subsidy to pay the COBRA premiums of any COBRA-eligible worker who loses employer health coverage during the duration of the pandemic through lay-off, furlough or reduction in hours. This legislation has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO Executive Council and a number of national unions, including several LCSP affiliates. I have spoken with several of you and there appears to be a consensus that, while we should not oppose legislation that is supported by most unions and will provide real benefits for many laid off workers, it is central to our mission to also point out that this legislation is insufficient to meet the needs of America's workers and their families and that Congress is missing out on a major opportunity to put us on the path to Medicare for All as we seek to emerge from this crisis and build a more just society. Attached please find a draft statement that tries to capture this consensus. It is somewhat lengthy as it tries convey the nuances of the current situation. We will probably produce a condensed version to release to the press. I hope to publish this statement on Monday (4/20) afternoon. Since this statement is consistent with our established policies and positions, I do not think that it requires a formal steering committee vote. However, if you have any comments or concerns please get them to me before 12 noon EDT on April 20. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cobra Is Not Enough.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 131772 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Apr 18 15:39:58 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 10:39:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [CU DSA] Excellent Jacobin article - An Open Letter from SDS Veterans Haranguing Young Socialists to Back Biden Was a Bad Idea In-Reply-To: <00b501d61597$46eadb50$d4c091f0$@comcast.net> References: <00b501d61597$46eadb50$d4c091f0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00c801d61597$9e06a950$da13fbf0$@comcast.net> I don't think age has anything to do with it. I am almost 63 years old and I know people in their 70's who were in SDS back in the 1960's ( while I was in elementary school ), and we all agree with the " New New Left ". An Open Letter from SDS Veterans Haranguing Young Socialists to Back Biden Was a Bad Idea By Daniel Finn We don't need melodramatic hyperbole from New Leftists telling us to campaign for Joe Biden. We need to build a democratic-socialist movement that is the only real hope for the planet's future. The Nation has published an "open letter from the old new left to the new new left," signed by more than sixty "founders and veterans of the leading New Left organization of the 1960s, Students for a Democratic Society." Its main thrust is to criticize younger leftists - in particular those in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) - for not endorsing Joe Biden's presidential campaign. If there's a generation between the "old new left" and the "new new left" - the middle-aged new left, perhaps? - some of its members will remember a similar plea from one of the letter's signatories, Todd Gitlin, before the 2004 presidential election. "Restarting Politics" On the eve of the Republican National Convention that year, Gitlin debated with Naomi Klein on Democracy Now. He urged anti-war protesters to stay off the streets and fall in line behind John Kerry: John Kerry is the possibility of restarting politics. Right now, we have no possibility of politics because we have a one-party state. That state can be defeated, and to say that we don't have the luxury of waiting to November 2 is to say we don't have the luxury of the US Constitution. I beg to differ. We have the luxury of the US Constitution. We have the possibility of defeating this reactionary cabal. Gitlin invoked the memory of anti-war protests in Chicago in 1968, suggesting they had paved the way for Richard Nixon's electoral triumph. For her part, Klein insisted that it was essential to protest in New York, because Kerry and the Democrats - including his colleague Joe Biden - had lined up uncritically behind George W. Bush's war drive: The Democrats have really sealed off the possibility of just expressing our opposition to the war by voting .. They are running on a hugely militaristic campaign. They're promising to continue the occupation, even expand the occupation of Iraq. So we need to be in the streets. Of course, John Kerry lost the presidential election that autumn: Bush didn't need any Chicago-style disturbances in Manhattan to see off his challenger. Then as now, there were plenty of liberals denouncing the Republican president as a "fascist " whose continued presence in the White House would lead to the eclipse of democracy. However, the Republicans lost control of Congress two years later, and relinquished the presidency to Barack Obama in 2008. The Bush administration certainly presided over gross violations of civil liberties, at home and (especially) abroad, leaving behind a repressive machine that Obama refused to dismantle. But the two-party system and its institutions remained fully intact. The greatest crime perpetrated by Bush and his "reactionary cabal" was the occupation of Iraq, which led to untold suffering for the people of that country. In that project, he had the unhesitating support of the Democratic establishment, from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. In her debate with Todd Gitlin, Naomi Klein kept the focus firmly on that unfolding horror, and refused to subordinate her political arguments to the electoral needs of the Democratic Party: I wasn't in Chicago in 1968, I hadn't been born yet. But I really feel a tremendous responsibility to the people I met in Iraq, to bring those voices here, because they're being crushed there. Protofascism? What can the old new left, the middle-aged new left, and the new new left learn from this experience? The open letter in the Nation once again invokes the specter of fascism: In our time, we fought - for a time successfully - against the sectarian politics of the Cold War. We were mindful then of the cataclysm that befell German democracy when socialists and communists fought each other - to death - as Hitler snuck by and then murdered them all. Now we hear that some on the left cannot see the difference between a capitalist democrat and a protofascist. We hope none of us learn the difference from jail cells. It requires no soft-soaping of Donald Trump's atrocious political record to describe this as melodramatic hyperbole. Trump has been in power since 2016: if he had both the will and the capacity to crush his opponents in the style of Hitler, Franco, or Mussolini, he would have done so by now. The most likely outcome if he wins reelection is not a crude dictatorship, but further erosion of civil liberties within the existing political framework. Opposition parties and media will still be able to function. The people who suffer the worst forms of oppression under Trump will be the immigrants and ethnic minorities whose rights are routinely violated under Republican and Democratic presidencies alike. A Biden administration won't close detention camps for refugees, or take down the surveillance state. In any case, Biden won't have to face Trump alone. He'll have the full support of the Democratic Party machine and its resources (including the Wall Street and Silicon Valley donors who were so spooked by the idea of a Bernie Sanders nomination), not to mention liberal media outlets with a vast reach, from the New York Times to MSNBC. He'll even have Bernie Sanders himself going out to bat for his candidacy. So why do they need DSA, or left-wing media platforms like Jacobin? After all, they've made it abundantly clear they hold everyone from that political quarter in contempt. Their main priority for this electoral cycle was to stop Sanders from winning the primary: beating Trump came a distant second. If their strategy for defeating Trump hinged on enthusiastic support from America's new left-wing activists, they shouldn't have treated those activists like something you'd scrape off your shoe. An Ethic of Responsibility Hitler isn't the only prominent twentieth-century German cited by the open letter: In 1919, in the midst of the brief German socialist revolution, the great sociologist Max Weber addressed left-wing students about politics. He urged upon them that the best politics must be painfully aware of the consequences of action, not just intentions. Speaking to young men, he prophetically warned them that the cost of ignoring consequences might be their deaths. The choice of Weber as a source of timeless wisdom about political maturity is eccentric to say the least. Weber directed the most vitriolic barbs against his country's radical left, days before their leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were murdered by right-wing death squads, with the complicity of the German Social Democrats and Weber's own Democratic Party: "Liebknecht belongs in the madhouse and Rosa Luxemburg in the zoo." That might explain why those "young men" (and women) were unmoved by Weber's scolding. If there's one political cause that really can't wait until 2024 or 2028, it's the climate crisis. Climate change was already an urgent matter when Naomi Klein debated with Todd Gitlin in 2004, and even more so when Barack Obama became president. But eight years of rule by a centrist Democrat in hock to corporate donors left the planet still hurtling towards catastrophe. And this year, the Democratic establishment moved heaven and earth to stop the only candidate who proposed to do something about it. Just as they did in 2004, Democratic leaders have sealed off the possibility of doing something about the most urgent moral and political issue of the day. No socialist who campaigned for Bernie Sanders should feel guilty about abandoning them and concentrating on building a movement that is the only real hope for the planet's future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Untitled attachment 00198.txt URL: From aware-bounces at lists.chambana.net Sun Apr 19 01:04:59 2020 From: aware-bounces at lists.chambana.net (aware-bounces at lists.chambana.net) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 01:04:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Forward of moderated message Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "UNAC" (via unac Mailing List) Subject: [unac] Julian Assange, Sanctions Kill Open Letter and more Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:01:25 -0400 Size: 397172 URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Apr 19 06:02:15 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 01:02:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Joe Biden: "I have no empathy [for the younger generation]. Give me a break." Message-ID: From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdXBrhV4B-I Joe Biden from an on-stage interview with Patt Morrison of the LA Times. > Joe Biden: I only had two political heroes in my whole life. And this is not new, > I mean I've said this since 1972: Dr. King and Robert Kennedy. And up to that > point there was a war raging, there was a a bitter fight over even whether we > should talk about the environment, women were still viewed as second-class > citizens and not prepared to have significant jobs and thought that, and we were > told the people didn't talk to one another over the war. And we were told: drop > out, go out to Haight-Ashbury, get engaged; you know shortly after I graduated '68 > Kent State -- 17 kids shot dead. And so the younger generation now tells me how > tough things are. Give me a break. No no -- I have no empathy for it. Give me a > break. Because here's the deal guys: we decided we were going to change the world > and we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement to the first stage. The > women's room had came into being. So my message is: get involved... Reactions include: Jimmy Dore & co. from about a year ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdmeV0GJ-oE Kyle Kulinsky (Secular Talk) from 11 months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMyvGRQmRCM The Humanist Report from 2 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmdHDWVZEVM The Rational National from 2 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GVKOtRsiX8 and there are plenty of others. From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Apr 19 16:10:11 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 11:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Neoliberalism Message-ID: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Apr 19 16:41:20 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 11:41:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shot heard round the world? Message-ID: The anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775) should remind us to ask how much the 'War of Independence' was a defense of slavery against the presumed plans of the British government to abolish it - in part because the slave-based economies of the American colonies were out-producing the home country. ### From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Apr 19 17:44:49 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 12:44:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Shot heard round the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a review of Gerald Horne's Book *The Counter-Revolution of 1776*, published by the Marxist historian Charles Post in the Marxist journal *Science and Society*, Post concludes as follows: Ultimately, the greatest weakness of Horne?s book is his reduction of the American Revolution to a ?counter-revolution of slavery? (x). Clearly the *intent *of the southern planters and their allies among northern colonial merchants was to defend slavery. The Constitutional Settlement of 1787, which consolidated a relatively centralized capitalist state in the United States, established the dominance of the merchants and planters and placed the master?slave relationship outside the purview of the classes represented in the newly created federal government. However, the *unintended consequence* of the Revolution and the Constitutional Settlement was to create a *mass constituency* among European?Americans in the north opposed to the expansion of plantation slavery in the 1840s and 1850s, and in support of the *abolition* of slavery during the Civil War. The goal of the merchants and their political representatives who spearheaded the adoption of the Constitution in 1787?88 was to create a centralized state capable of securing the public debt, stabilizing a national currency, and ensuring the collection of government revenues (taxes, tariffs and land sales) and private debts (Holton, 2007). The new state institutions allowed merchants and land speculators to defeat northern independent household producers in the cycle of class struggles in the 1790s. Farmers unsuccessfully fought tax collectors, merchant?creditors, and land speculators to defend *non-market access to land*, which allowed them to market only physical surpluses and maintain possession of landed property without ?selling to survive.? The *unintended consequence *of closing off access to free or inexpensive land on the frontier was the transformation of the conditions under which farmers in the north obtained, expanded and maintained landed property. Northern U. S. farmers became dependent upon successful market production for their economic survival ? they became agrarian petty-commodity producers who had to specialize output, accumulate land and capital, and introduce new tools and methods to preserve their landed property. As rural households became dependent on the market for their economic survival, northern agriculture became a massive home market for industrially produced capital and consumer goods, sparking the industrial revolution of the 19th century. The transformation of social property relations in northern agriculture established the conditions for *capitalist development *in the north after c. 1840, and created a *majoritarian *social bloc of farmers, manufacturers and skilled workers opposed to the geographic expansion of slavery. By the 1840s, the growing contradictions between the social conditions of the development of capitalism and slavery set the stage for the sharp class conflicts that culminated in the Civil War. The emergence of two regional social blocs ? a northern coalition of farmers, native- born skilled workers and manufacturers opposed to slavery expansion organized in the Republican Party; and a southern coalition of slaveholders and non?slave-owning white farmers demanding the opening of the west to slavery organized in a rump Democratic Party ? set the stage for Lincoln?s election, southern secession and war. Military contingency and the mass flight of slaves from the plantations led to the abolition of slavery, with the support of the vast majority in the north (Levine, 2013). Ultimately, Horne?s claim that the American Revolution was *simply *a ?counter-revolution of slavery? is, at best, only *partially true. *The American Revolution and Constitutional Settlement protected the masters? property rights in African?American men, women and children, enabling the plantocracy to maintain and expand their form of social labor as the demand for slave-produced cotton exploded in the first half of the 19th century. However, the *unintended consequence *of the Revolution ? the transformation of northern household-based agriculture ? not only created the conditions for the development of capitalism, but created massive social forces opposed to slavery?s expansion and eventual existence. Put another way, the American Revolution *both *consolidated and ultimately undermined chattel slavery in the United States. On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 11:42 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > The anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775) > should remind us to ask how much the 'War of Independence' was a defense of > slavery against the presumed plans of the British government to abolish it > - in part because the slave-based economies of the American colonies were > out-producing the home country. > > ### > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Apr 19 18:58:17 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Shot heard round the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <911D15DA-79A2-4FFB-8624-7A34F7667895@newsfromneptune.com> Thanks for this, David. I?d like to hear my late colleague Gene Genovese on the recent developments of this discussion. My suspicion (it?s no more than that) is that Gene, the combative soi-disant Marxist, would agree with the following - and that it?s essentially correct. ?CGE > On Apr 19, 2020, at 12:44 PM, David Green wrote: > > Ultimately, Horne?s claim that the American Revolution was simply a > > ?counter-revolution of slavery? is, at best, only partially true. The American > > Revolution and Constitutional Settlement protected the masters? property > > rights in African?American men, women and children, enabling the plantocracy > > to maintain and expand their form of social labor as the demand > > for slave-produced cotton exploded in the first half of the 19th century. > > However, the unintended consequence of the Revolution ? the transformation > > of northern household-based agriculture ? not only created the conditions > > for the development of capitalism, but created massive social forces opposed > > to slavery?s expansion and eventual existence. Put another way, the American > > Revolution both consolidated and ultimately undermined chattel slavery in > > the United States. > From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Apr 21 12:16:22 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 07:16:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Once Daily Digest Email In-Reply-To: <33602bebba8fb7dd6e71fb413.32c556cb2b.20200421095951.4727cce454.99500e64@mail65.atl301.rsgsv.net> References: <33602bebba8fb7dd6e71fb413.32c556cb2b.20200421095951.4727cce454.99500e64@mail65.atl301.rsgsv.net> Message-ID: <002d01d617d6$ac847390$058d5ab0$@comcast.net> From: Popular Resistance [mailto:info at popularresistance.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 5:00 AM To: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Subject: Once Daily Digest Email Be the people's resistance media! Forward this email to your friends and share the articles on social media. General Strike Campaign Growing In The United States; Begins On May Day Image removed by sender.By Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese, Clearing the FOG. Over the last two years, there have been record numbers of worker strikes in the United States not seen since the depression. Since the recession and COVID-19 pandemic started this winter, there have been many wildcat strikes in response to workers having their pay cut and being required to work in hazardous conditions even though they are deemed essential. Now, as the government demonstrates its unwillingness to provide basic protection for the population even as it injects billions of dollars to big industries and banks, support for a general strike is here. -more- Unions Back US Postal Service?s $75 Billion Pandemic Appeal Image removed by sender.By Mark Gruenberg, Intrepid Report. Washington ? Faced with a crash in mail volume and revenue due to closures to battle the coronavirus pandemic?right when the country needs the Postal Service the most to help get vital food, medicine, and other life-saving goods to everyone?Postmaster General Megan Brennan asked Congress for a combination of $75 billion in cash and credit to keep going through the financial disaster. Her April 9 video briefing request, to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which handles postal legislation, drew immediate support from the nation?s two big postal unions... -more- COVID-19, Capitalism, And Socialism Image removed by sender.By Victor Wallis, Political Animal Magazine. The COVID-19 emergency underscores longstanding truths about capitalism and socialism. Acting on the most immediate demands that it raises draws us directly into a confrontation with core issues. COVID-19 is exceptionally contagious, and those who are infected by it do not necessarily show symptoms. These two traits, in combination, guarantee rapid spread of the virus unless certain requirements have been met. Most directly, there must be ample supplies of the appropriate diagnostic tests, personal protective gear (masks, gloves, hand sanitizers, etc., especially for .. -more- New York Tenants Plan A ?Massive Wave Of Rent Strikes? Image removed by sender.By Steve Wishnia, The Indypendent. With hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers unable to pay rent after being forced out of work by the coronavirus epidemic, a group of housing activists is organizing what they call ?a massive wave of rent strikes? beginning May 1. Their aim is to pressure the state to cancel all rent payments for April, May, and June. ?My building is going on rent strike starting May 1,? Lena Melendez of Washington Heights, a member of the Riverside Edgecombe Neighborhood Association, said during a telephone press conference April 16. Gov. Andrew Cuomo?s 90-day moratorium on evictions won?t protect... -more- Mr. Fish's Catch of the Day: We're Number One Image removed by sender. A Universal Basic Income Is Essential And Will Work Image removed by sender.By Ellen Brown, Web of Debt Blog. According to an April 6 article on CNBC.com, Spain is slated to become the first country in Europe to introduce a universal basic income (UBI) on a long-term basis. Spain?s Minister for Economic Affairs has announced plans to roll out a UBI ?as soon as possible,? with the goal of providing a nationwide basic wage that supports citizens ?forever.? Guy Standing, a research professor at the University of London, told CNBC that there was no prospect of a global economic revival without a universal basic income. ?It?s almost a no-brainer,? he said. ?We are going to have some sort of basic income system... -more- Coronavirus And The Crisis This Time Image removed by sender.By Sam Gindin, The Bullet. Crises ? not regular downturns but major crises ? are characterized by the uncertainty they bring. They interrupt the normal and require yet-to-be discovered abnormal responses in order for us to move on. In the midst of these periodic calamities, we don?t know how or even whether we will stumble out of them nor what to expect if they do end. Crises are, consequently, moments of turmoil with openings for new political developments, good and bad. Because each such crisis modifies the trajectory of history, the subsequent crisis occurs in a changed context and so has its own distinct features. -more- Pandemic May Turn People Back To Local Farms Image removed by sender.By Polly Fitz, Door County Pulse. At Waseda Farms in Baileys Harbor, store manager Sayard Geeve said, ?The phone is ringing off the hook.? Flying Tractor Farm in Sturgeon Bay has been selling more of its meat products. Cold Climate Farms in Nasewaupee is getting calls from people asking whether its staff can ship food. As the COVID-19 outbreak spreads throughout the country and here on the peninsula, local farms are affected differently from many other operations. Farmers with products available now are coming up with new ways to safely get their food to customers, and as they prepare now for the outdoor growing season... -more- Attorney General Barr Refuses To Release 9/11 Documents Image removed by sender.By Tim Golden and Sebastian Rotella, Pro Publica. The White House press office did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment on the families? characterizations of the meeting. One day after that encounter, Justice Department officials agreed to release the name of one mid-level Saudi religious official who had been tied to the case in an FBI document that had been partially declassified earlier. At the same time, however, Barr asserted the state secrets privilege to protect other FBI documents sought by the families. The latest flurry of statements supporting that claim responded to challenges from... -more- Image removed by sender. Long Breadlines Form Outside Of Food Banks Image removed by sender.By Alan Macleod, Mintpress News. At least 10,000 cars line up in an orderly fashion in San Antonio, all full of hungry, increasingly desperate people. Thousands already arrived the night before just to get a chance to eat. ?We just can?t feed this many,? said the CEO of the local food bank that Texans have descended upon. It is a scene playing out across the country; 1,300 cars swamped the drive-thru Greater Pittsburgh Food Bank. The United Center, home to the Chicago Bulls and Blackhawks, has been transformed into a huge food warehouse, as COVID-19 has driven a wedge through the cracks in American society, where... -more- Healthcare Workers Block Denver 'Reopen Protest' Image removed by sender.By Nick Visser, Huff Post. As tensions continue to boil over amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic that has placed large swaths of the nation at a standstill, a small group of health care workers blocked hundreds of protestors in Denver on Sunday afternoon, resulting in a dramatic showdown. Alyson McClaran, a photojournalist based in Denver, said the medical workers stood in the street to counter hundreds who had gathered at the Colorado capitol in an event dubbed ?Operation Gridlock.? The event was meant to express frustration with Gov. Jared Polis? (D) stay-at-home orders as coronavirus continues to infect... -more- Immigrant Meatpackers Fightback Against Intimidation And Death Traps Image removed by sender.By Mike Elk, Pay Day Report. As COVID-19 ravages communities across the U.S., many experts agree that meatpacking plants, where employees work shoulder-to-shoulder, are the next ground zero for the spread of COVID-19. In several rural communities with sudden COVID-19 spikes, many residents say that the meatpacking plants that surround the city and employ several thousand area residents are responsible for accelerating the spread of COVID-19. Albany, Ga., rocked by COVID-19, has seen more than 30 people die from the virus. For a city of only 70,000, Albany has the fourth-highest per capita rate of COVID-19... -more- No Evil Foods Is Evil To Workers Image removed by sender.By Joe Atkins, Labor South. No Evil Foods on the outskirts of Asheville, North Carolina, takes pride in being a very cool and hip company. On its web site, it proclaims the following: ?No Evil Foods makes meat from nothin? but plants. We are makers driven to help hungry mouths everywhere recognize the connection between food, kindness to self and others, and environmental impact.? This is a company with a leftist schtick. Among its vegan meat products are Comrade Cluck and the chorizo-like El Zapatista. Its owners like to call themselves ?revolutionary leaders?. Well, comrades, Emiliano would not be very happy with No Evil Foods if he... -more- Flint Prosecutors Say Investigation On Track Despite Earlier Statute Of Limitations Warning Image removed by sender.By Andrew Roth, Flintbeat.com. Flint, MI ? Leaders of the Flint water crisis prosecution team said in a statement Friday that their investigation remains on track despite an earlier warning about a looming statute of limitations deadline. April 25 will mark six years since Flint?s water source was switched to the Flint River. Michigan?s criminal law sets a statute of limitations of six years for misdemeanors and of six to 10 years for most felonies. But Solicitor General Fadwa Hammoud and Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said the statute of limitations won?t be a problem for their investigation. ?April 25, 2014, is a significant date in the history of... -more- The Self-Centered Rich Country Response To Pandemics And Crises Is Wrecking Poor Countries Image removed by sender.By Tamara Pearson, Counterpunch. I?m squatting on a round piece of concrete, and a 72-year-old man is sitting in the gutter, his walking stick beside him. He tells me that after being deported from the United States, he has been hiking the streets of Mexico City trying to find somewhere to stay. But all the refuges are closed due to the pandemic, including the one we?re sitting outside of, where I volunteer. He has run out of insulin for his diabetes and says he can?t walk anymore. I?m aware that he may not survive much longer. He?s the fifth person that day that I have to turn away and I can?t stand it. Back in the migrant refuge, we organize working... -more- Federal Prisons Make Phone Calls Free Image removed by sender.By Shani Saxon, Colorlines. Now that in-person prison visits have been banned amid the coronavirus pandemic, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announced plans to make prison phone and video calls free for incarcerated people, Politico reports. Prison reform advocates have long condemned the unreasonably high prices predatory phone companies charge incarcerated people to make phone calls. Those concerns were exacerbated once the COVID-19 pandemic began tearing through prison populations across the country, making face-to-face visits impossible. Twelve Senators wrote a letter to the Department of Justice.. -more- As an independent media source free of advertising, we rely on your support. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. @PopResistance Image removed by sender. Facebook.com/PopularResistanceOrg Image removed by sender. PopularResistance.org Our mailing address is: Popular Resistance 402 East Lake Ave. Baltimore, MD 21212 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1804 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2094 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1288 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 431 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Apr 22 00:51:00 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 19:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal Message-ID: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ McAlevey provides specific actionable advice on how to form a union, which unions are most likely to be amenable to work with you (nurses & teachers' unions), and she clearly calls for strikes among the workers we now see are indispensable (among them: grocery store clerks & delivery drivers not Wall St. traders despite what the establishment media tells you). My main objection is McAlevey's fleeting references to the sex of the amenable workers and Trump Derangement Syndrome[2]. But fortunately Dore is neither put off by it nor mired in that side issue in the interview. McAlevey, in response to what union busters aim to accomplish, quoted a union buster which I found referenced below: https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-are-unions-20140227-story.html#axzz2uYgJ10ss https://archive.md/C9aG2 > Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union > organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to > examine ?Confessions of a Union Buster,?[1] the heartfelt memoir Martin Jay Levitt > published in 1993. > > ?I come from a very dirty business,? Levitt told a carpenters union audience > (after his conversion). As he described it, ?the enemy was the collective spirit. > I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it, choked it, > bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom into a > united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-0gxca-VxM [2] Dore is much more pointed in his criticism of 'any blue will do' (a slogan advocating that one should support any Democrat no matter who they are, what their history is, or what they say they'll support/oppose) in his take on Noam Chomsky's endorsement of Joe Biden. You can also find Chomsky's advice to vote for Biden on recent episodes of Democracy Now and in an interview with Medhi Hasan (which is what Dore focuses on). And Dore & co. are still some the very few commentators with a proper sense of priority on how much the Democrats are not working for you. The so-called "progressive" Democrats -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and the rest of "the squad", as well as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all been described as progressive -- are all useless to you because of how all but a handful of Congresspeople voted for the CARES Act (everyone voting in the Senate went along with it and those few objectors in the House sounded like they were all men, judging by the voice vote given). Despite that, AOC continues to lecture and gaslight us about our collective needs and not clearly and plainly say that she voted against CARES (because she actually voted for CARES and she knows it), didn't put in any effort to call for a recorded vote (and for a lame reason[3] that is no excuse to not call for a recorded vote), and didn't challenge her leadership on a recorded vote or the bill. The Democrats are fully behind our collective immiseration. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwiP6JT3mQ for Dore's response and this is filled with questions the establishment-friendly media aren't asking. For all of her time-consuming bluster, AOC has not demonstrated the spine to appear on Jimmy Dore's show despite having an open invitation to appear so he can put these questions directly to her. See Dore's interview with Dylan Ratigan in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oERncbzPY on how anyone living on a stock-based retirement plan or pension is in fiscal trouble too. [3] Rep. Barbara Lee stood out as the sole House vote against the authorization to grant the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. She lost that fight. But she can forever turn to her constituents and argue that she made the correct call when it counted. AOC can't do that. We've heard the voice vote (which sounded like a small group of all men) and AOC has been cagey about describing her own choices (she never clearly said she voted against CARES, won't given Rep. Thomas Massey credit where credit is due for objecting to the point where the House had to have a voice vote, and erroneously claims that it would have "needlessly endanger[ed] folks" to have objected without 43 other Reps. joining her). These are reasons for her constituents to vote AOC out. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 22 13:31:00 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:31:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> References: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <005601d618aa$44241290$cc6c37b0$@comcast.net> Jeff, Thanks for composing these news digests. They are very helpful references. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:51 PM To: Peace Discuss; Peace Subject: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ McAlevey provides specific actionable advice on how to form a union, which unions are most likely to be amenable to work with you (nurses & teachers' unions), and she clearly calls for strikes among the workers we now see are indispensable (among them: grocery store clerks & delivery drivers not Wall St. traders despite what the establishment media tells you). My main objection is McAlevey's fleeting references to the sex of the amenable workers and Trump Derangement Syndrome[2]. But fortunately Dore is neither put off by it nor mired in that side issue in the interview. McAlevey, in response to what union busters aim to accomplish, quoted a union buster which I found referenced below: https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-are-unions-20140227-story.html#axzz2uYgJ10ss https://archive.md/C9aG2 > Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union > organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to > examine ?Confessions of a Union Buster,?[1] the heartfelt memoir Martin Jay Levitt > published in 1993. > > ?I come from a very dirty business,? Levitt told a carpenters union audience > (after his conversion). As he described it, ?the enemy was the collective spirit. > I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it, choked it, > bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom into a > united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-0gxca-VxM [2] Dore is much more pointed in his criticism of 'any blue will do' (a slogan advocating that one should support any Democrat no matter who they are, what their history is, or what they say they'll support/oppose) in his take on Noam Chomsky's endorsement of Joe Biden. You can also find Chomsky's advice to vote for Biden on recent episodes of Democracy Now and in an interview with Medhi Hasan (which is what Dore focuses on). And Dore & co. are still some the very few commentators with a proper sense of priority on how much the Democrats are not working for you. The so-called "progressive" Democrats -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and the rest of "the squad", as well as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all been described as progressive -- are all useless to you because of how all but a handful of Congresspeople voted for the CARES Act (everyone voting in the Senate went along with it and those few objectors in the House sounded like they were all men, judging by the voice vote given). Despite that, AOC continues to lecture and gaslight us about our collective needs and not clearly and plainly say that she voted against CARES (because she actually voted for CARES and she knows it), didn't put in any effort to call for a recorded vote (and for a lame reason[3] that is no excuse to not call for a recorded vote), and didn't challenge her leadership on a recorded vote or the bill. The Democrats are fully behind our collective immiseration. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwiP6JT3mQ for Dore's response and this is filled with questions the establishment-friendly media aren't asking. For all of her time-consuming bluster, AOC has not demonstrated the spine to appear on Jimmy Dore's show despite having an open invitation to appear so he can put these questions directly to her. See Dore's interview with Dylan Ratigan in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oERncbzPY on how anyone living on a stock-based retirement plan or pension is in fiscal trouble too. [3] Rep. Barbara Lee stood out as the sole House vote against the authorization to grant the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. She lost that fight. But she can forever turn to her constituents and argue that she made the correct call when it counted. AOC can't do that. We've heard the voice vote (which sounded like a small group of all men) and AOC has been cagey about describing her own choices (she never clearly said she voted against CARES, won't given Rep. Thomas Massey credit where credit is due for objecting to the point where the House had to have a voice vote, and erroneously claims that it would have "needlessly endanger[ed] folks" to have objected without 43 other Reps. joining her). These are reasons for her constituents to vote AOC out. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 22 14:27:53 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 07:27:53 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: <005601d618aa$44241290$cc6c37b0$@comcast.net> References: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> <005601d618aa$44241290$cc6c37b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Jeff, great job of providing us with the information necessary to delve beneath the surface. Jimmy Dore is doing a great job of doing just that. I liked his interview with Dylan Rattigan explaining what the oil crisis is, to those of us weak on the details. Though I generally don?t like focusing on the individual, Jimmy does it in order to uncloak the duplicity of AOC, which is necessary for those who think AOC or others who have risen to media attention, saying all the right things, are going to save us, or challenge authority, just because they grand stand and tell us so. My only problem with his latest was he targeted Pelosi as the all encompassing evil. She is, but the assumption that some may take from this is ? if we just remove Pelosi, all will be well.? No it won?t change a thing, as she is just the front man for so many others, owned by corporate capitalism. What we need is system change, and if any one dares challenge it within the system, they will be shut down, not promoted as ?celebrities of the left.? I didn?t see the interview with Jane McAlevey, or rebuttal in relation to Chomsky?s comments on the election. However, in looking at those promoting Janes? books, most are mainstream Democrats rarely challenging the system, other than Naomi Klein, who does so now with nuance and caution. As to Chomsky on the upcoming election. I read the interview done by Jacobin. Chomsky as usual defines the problem as capitalism. Then he recommends Biden. How can the ?greatest intellectual alive today" after analyzing the problem, then suggest a solution that supports the problem. It maybe hubris on my part to challenge ?the greatest intellectual alive today," someone who eight years ago, reading his many books, enlightened me to the many crimes the USG committed over the years, as well as who and why. Based upon everything I learned from him, I have to ask why? I agree global warming and nuclear war are real and serious impending threats to the very existence of mankind, but doing the same thing over and over again, supporting the same people as previous, the same who gave rise to a Trump, representing our system of corruption and decay, is insanity. Chomsky has never supported a third Party, says little of people in the streets, mass movements or challenging our government, whoever the administration, so I am a bit bewildered by his reluctance to challenge the system as is necessary. > On Apr 22, 2020, at 06:31, David Johnson via Peace wrote: > > Jeff, > > Thanks for composing these news digests. They are very helpful references. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:51 PM > To: Peace Discuss; Peace > Subject: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal > > Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On > today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: > Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". > > https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ > > McAlevey provides specific actionable advice on how to form a union, which unions are > most likely to be amenable to work with you (nurses & teachers' unions), and she > clearly calls for strikes among the workers we now see are indispensable (among them: > grocery store clerks & delivery drivers not Wall St. traders despite what the > establishment media tells you). My main objection is McAlevey's fleeting references > to the sex of the amenable workers and Trump Derangement Syndrome[2]. But fortunately > Dore is neither put off by it nor mired in that side issue in the interview. > > McAlevey, in response to what union busters aim to accomplish, quoted a union buster > which I found referenced below: > > https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-are-unions-20140227-story.html#axzz2uYgJ10ss > https://archive.md/C9aG2 > >> Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union >> organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to >> examine ?Confessions of a Union Buster,?[1] the heartfelt memoir Martin Jay Levitt >> published in 1993. >> >> ?I come from a very dirty business,? Levitt told a carpenters union audience >> (after his conversion). As he described it, ?the enemy was the collective spirit. >> I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it, choked it, >> bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom into a >> united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant." > [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-0gxca-VxM > > [2] Dore is much more pointed in his criticism of 'any blue will do' (a slogan > advocating that one should support any Democrat no matter who they are, what their > history is, or what they say they'll support/oppose) in his take on Noam Chomsky's > endorsement of Joe Biden. You can also find Chomsky's advice to vote for Biden on > recent episodes of Democracy Now and in an interview with Medhi Hasan (which is what > Dore focuses on). > > > > And Dore & co. are still some the very few commentators with a proper sense of > priority on how much the Democrats are not working for you. The so-called > "progressive" Democrats -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, > and the rest of "the squad", as well as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all > been described as progressive -- are all useless to you because of how all but a > handful of Congresspeople voted for the CARES Act (everyone voting in the Senate went > along with it and those few objectors in the House sounded like they were all men, > judging by the voice vote given). > > Despite that, AOC continues to lecture and gaslight us about our collective needs and > not clearly and plainly say that she voted against CARES (because she actually voted > for CARES and she knows it), didn't put in any effort to call for a recorded vote > (and for a lame reason[3] that is no excuse to not call for a recorded vote), and > didn't challenge her leadership on a recorded vote or the bill. The Democrats are > fully behind our collective immiseration. See > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwiP6JT3mQ for Dore's response and this is filled > with questions the establishment-friendly media aren't asking. For all of her > time-consuming bluster, AOC has not demonstrated the spine to appear on Jimmy Dore's > show despite having an open invitation to appear so he can put these questions > directly to her. > > See Dore's interview with Dylan Ratigan in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oERncbzPY on how anyone living on a stock-based > retirement plan or pension is in fiscal trouble too. > > [3] Rep. Barbara Lee stood out as the sole House vote against the authorization to > grant the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. She lost that fight. But she can forever turn > to her constituents and argue that she made the correct call when it counted. AOC > can't do that. We've heard the voice vote (which sounded like a small group of all > men) and AOC has been cagey about describing her own choices (she never clearly said > she voted against CARES, won't given Rep. Thomas Massey credit where credit is due > for objecting to the point where the House had to have a voice vote, and erroneously > claims that it would have "needlessly endanger[ed] folks" to have objected without 43 > other Reps. joining her). These are reasons for her constituents to vote AOC out. > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 22 14:58:28 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: References: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> <005601d618aa$44241290$cc6c37b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <006201d618b6$7c1ce030$7456a090$@comcast.net> With Chomsky's latest statement that we need to vote for Joe Biden, is proof that nobody is correct 100% of the time. He is only human and hence flawed like the rest of us. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:28 AM To: J.B. Nicholson Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal Jeff, great job of providing us with the information necessary to delve beneath the surface. Jimmy Dore is doing a great job of doing just that. I liked his interview with Dylan Rattigan explaining what the oil crisis is, to those of us weak on the details. Though I generally don?t like focusing on the individual, Jimmy does it in order to uncloak the duplicity of AOC, which is necessary for those who think AOC or others who have risen to media attention, saying all the right things, are going to save us, or challenge authority, just because they grand stand and tell us so. My only problem with his latest was he targeted Pelosi as the all encompassing evil. She is, but the assumption that some may take from this is ? if we just remove Pelosi, all will be well.? No it won?t change a thing, as she is just the front man for so many others, owned by corporate capitalism. What we need is system change, and if any one dares challenge it within the system, they will be shut down, not promoted as ?celebrities of the left.? I didn?t see the interview with Jane McAlevey, or rebuttal in relation to Chomsky?s comments on the election. However, in looking at those promoting Janes? books, most are mainstream Democrats rarely challenging the system, other than Naomi Klein, who does so now with nuance and caution. As to Chomsky on the upcoming election. I read the interview done by Jacobin. Chomsky as usual defines the problem as capitalism. Then he recommends Biden. How can the ?greatest intellectual alive today" after analyzing the problem, then suggest a solution that supports the problem. It maybe hubris on my part to challenge ?the greatest intellectual alive today," someone who eight years ago, reading his many books, enlightened me to the many crimes the USG committed over the years, as well as who and why. Based upon everything I learned from him, I have to ask why? I agree global warming and nuclear war are real and serious impending threats to the very existence of mankind, but doing the same thing over and over again, supporting the same people as previous, the same who gave rise to a Trump, representing our system of corruption and decay, is insanity. Chomsky has never supported a third Party, says little of people in the streets, mass movements or challenging our government, whoever the administration, so I am a bit bewildered by his reluctance to challenge the system as is necessary. > On Apr 22, 2020, at 06:31, David Johnson via Peace wrote: > > Jeff, > > Thanks for composing these news digests. They are very helpful references. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:51 PM > To: Peace Discuss; Peace > Subject: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal > > Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On > today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: > Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". > > https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ > > McAlevey provides specific actionable advice on how to form a union, which unions are > most likely to be amenable to work with you (nurses & teachers' unions), and she > clearly calls for strikes among the workers we now see are indispensable (among them: > grocery store clerks & delivery drivers not Wall St. traders despite what the > establishment media tells you). My main objection is McAlevey's fleeting references > to the sex of the amenable workers and Trump Derangement Syndrome[2]. But fortunately > Dore is neither put off by it nor mired in that side issue in the interview. > > McAlevey, in response to what union busters aim to accomplish, quoted a union buster > which I found referenced below: > > https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-are-unions-20140227-story.html#axzz2uYgJ10ss > https://archive.md/C9aG2 > >> Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union >> organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to >> examine ?Confessions of a Union Buster,?[1] the heartfelt memoir Martin Jay Levitt >> published in 1993. >> >> ?I come from a very dirty business,? Levitt told a carpenters union audience >> (after his conversion). As he described it, ?the enemy was the collective spirit. >> I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it, choked it, >> bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom into a >> united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant." > [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-0gxca-VxM > > [2] Dore is much more pointed in his criticism of 'any blue will do' (a slogan > advocating that one should support any Democrat no matter who they are, what their > history is, or what they say they'll support/oppose) in his take on Noam Chomsky's > endorsement of Joe Biden. You can also find Chomsky's advice to vote for Biden on > recent episodes of Democracy Now and in an interview with Medhi Hasan (which is what > Dore focuses on). > > > > And Dore & co. are still some the very few commentators with a proper sense of > priority on how much the Democrats are not working for you. The so-called > "progressive" Democrats -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, > and the rest of "the squad", as well as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all > been described as progressive -- are all useless to you because of how all but a > handful of Congresspeople voted for the CARES Act (everyone voting in the Senate went > along with it and those few objectors in the House sounded like they were all men, > judging by the voice vote given). > > Despite that, AOC continues to lecture and gaslight us about our collective needs and > not clearly and plainly say that she voted against CARES (because she actually voted > for CARES and she knows it), didn't put in any effort to call for a recorded vote > (and for a lame reason[3] that is no excuse to not call for a recorded vote), and > didn't challenge her leadership on a recorded vote or the bill. The Democrats are > fully behind our collective immiseration. See > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwiP6JT3mQ for Dore's response and this is filled > with questions the establishment-friendly media aren't asking. For all of her > time-consuming bluster, AOC has not demonstrated the spine to appear on Jimmy Dore's > show despite having an open invitation to appear so he can put these questions > directly to her. > > See Dore's interview with Dylan Ratigan in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oERncbzPY on how anyone living on a stock-based > retirement plan or pension is in fiscal trouble too. > > [3] Rep. Barbara Lee stood out as the sole House vote against the authorization to > grant the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. She lost that fight. But she can forever turn > to her constituents and argue that she made the correct call when it counted. AOC > can't do that. We've heard the voice vote (which sounded like a small group of all > men) and AOC has been cagey about describing her own choices (she never clearly said > she voted against CARES, won't given Rep. Thomas Massey credit where credit is due > for objecting to the point where the House had to have a voice vote, and erroneously > claims that it would have "needlessly endanger[ed] folks" to have objected without 43 > other Reps. joining her). These are reasons for her constituents to vote AOC out. > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 22 15:04:55 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:04:55 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: <006201d618b6$7c1ce030$7456a090$@comcast.net> References: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> <005601d618aa$44241290$cc6c37b0$@comcast.net> <006201d618b6$7c1ce030$7456a090$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Sorry, thats no excuse for someone who influences millions. If I?m wrong, who cares, as no one listens to me. But when someone of Chomsky?s stature is wrong, is has monumental consequences. > On Apr 22, 2020, at 07:58, David Johnson wrote: > > With Chomsky's latest statement that we need to vote for Joe Biden, is proof that nobody is correct 100% of the time. He is only human and hence flawed like the rest of us. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:28 AM > To: J.B. Nicholson > Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal > > > Jeff, great job of providing us with the information necessary to delve beneath the surface. > > Jimmy Dore is doing a great job of doing just that. I liked his interview with Dylan Rattigan explaining what the oil crisis is, to those of us weak on the details. > > Though I generally don?t like focusing on the individual, Jimmy does it in order to uncloak the duplicity of AOC, which is necessary for those who think AOC or others who have risen to media attention, saying all the right things, are going to save us, or challenge authority, just because they grand stand and tell us so. > > My only problem with his latest was he targeted Pelosi as the all encompassing evil. She is, but the assumption that some may take from this is ? if we just remove Pelosi, all will be well.? No it won?t change a thing, as she is just the front man for so many others, owned by corporate capitalism. What we need is system change, and if any one dares challenge it within the system, they will be shut down, not promoted as ?celebrities of the left.? > > I didn?t see the interview with Jane McAlevey, or rebuttal in relation to Chomsky?s comments on the election. However, in looking at those promoting Janes? books, most are mainstream Democrats rarely challenging the system, other than Naomi Klein, who does so now with nuance and caution. > > As to Chomsky on the upcoming election. I read the interview done by Jacobin. Chomsky as usual defines the problem as capitalism. Then he recommends Biden. How can the ?greatest intellectual alive today" after analyzing the problem, then suggest a solution that supports the problem. > > It maybe hubris on my part to challenge ?the greatest intellectual alive today," someone who eight years ago, reading his many books, enlightened me to the many crimes the USG committed over the years, as well as who and why. Based upon everything I learned from him, I have to ask why? I agree global warming and nuclear war are real and serious impending threats to the very existence of mankind, but doing the same thing over and over again, supporting the same people as previous, the same who gave rise to a Trump, representing our system of corruption and decay, is insanity. > > Chomsky has never supported a third Party, says little of people in the streets, mass movements or challenging our government, whoever the administration, so I am a bit bewildered by his reluctance to challenge the system as is necessary. > > > > > >> On Apr 22, 2020, at 06:31, David Johnson via Peace wrote: >> >> Jeff, >> >> Thanks for composing these news digests. They are very helpful references. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:51 PM >> To: Peace Discuss; Peace >> Subject: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal >> >> Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On >> today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: >> Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". >> >> https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ >> >> McAlevey provides specific actionable advice on how to form a union, which unions are >> most likely to be amenable to work with you (nurses & teachers' unions), and she >> clearly calls for strikes among the workers we now see are indispensable (among them: >> grocery store clerks & delivery drivers not Wall St. traders despite what the >> establishment media tells you). My main objection is McAlevey's fleeting references >> to the sex of the amenable workers and Trump Derangement Syndrome[2]. But fortunately >> Dore is neither put off by it nor mired in that side issue in the interview. >> >> McAlevey, in response to what union busters aim to accomplish, quoted a union buster >> which I found referenced below: >> >> https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-are-unions-20140227-story.html#axzz2uYgJ10ss >> https://archive.md/C9aG2 >> >>> Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union >>> organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to >>> examine ?Confessions of a Union Buster,?[1] the heartfelt memoir Martin Jay Levitt >>> published in 1993. >>> >>> ?I come from a very dirty business,? Levitt told a carpenters union audience >>> (after his conversion). As he described it, ?the enemy was the collective spirit. >>> I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it, choked it, >>> bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom into a >>> united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant." >> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-0gxca-VxM >> >> [2] Dore is much more pointed in his criticism of 'any blue will do' (a slogan >> advocating that one should support any Democrat no matter who they are, what their >> history is, or what they say they'll support/oppose) in his take on Noam Chomsky's >> endorsement of Joe Biden. You can also find Chomsky's advice to vote for Biden on >> recent episodes of Democracy Now and in an interview with Medhi Hasan (which is what >> Dore focuses on). >> >> >> >> And Dore & co. are still some the very few commentators with a proper sense of >> priority on how much the Democrats are not working for you. The so-called >> "progressive" Democrats -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, >> and the rest of "the squad", as well as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all >> been described as progressive -- are all useless to you because of how all but a >> handful of Congresspeople voted for the CARES Act (everyone voting in the Senate went >> along with it and those few objectors in the House sounded like they were all men, >> judging by the voice vote given). >> >> Despite that, AOC continues to lecture and gaslight us about our collective needs and >> not clearly and plainly say that she voted against CARES (because she actually voted >> for CARES and she knows it), didn't put in any effort to call for a recorded vote >> (and for a lame reason[3] that is no excuse to not call for a recorded vote), and >> didn't challenge her leadership on a recorded vote or the bill. The Democrats are >> fully behind our collective immiseration. See >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwiP6JT3mQ for Dore's response and this is filled >> with questions the establishment-friendly media aren't asking. For all of her >> time-consuming bluster, AOC has not demonstrated the spine to appear on Jimmy Dore's >> show despite having an open invitation to appear so he can put these questions >> directly to her. >> >> See Dore's interview with Dylan Ratigan in >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oERncbzPY on how anyone living on a stock-based >> retirement plan or pension is in fiscal trouble too. >> >> [3] Rep. Barbara Lee stood out as the sole House vote against the authorization to >> grant the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. She lost that fight. But she can forever turn >> to her constituents and argue that she made the correct call when it counted. AOC >> can't do that. We've heard the voice vote (which sounded like a small group of all >> men) and AOC has been cagey about describing her own choices (she never clearly said >> she voted against CARES, won't given Rep. Thomas Massey credit where credit is due >> for objecting to the point where the House had to have a voice vote, and erroneously >> claims that it would have "needlessly endanger[ed] folks" to have objected without 43 >> other Reps. joining her). These are reasons for her constituents to vote AOC out. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 22 16:48:45 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:48:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: References: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> <005601d618aa$44241290$cc6c37b0$@comcast.net> <006201d618b6$7c1ce030$7456a090$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <007301d618c5$e3e57ce0$abb076a0$@comcast.net> Karen, I wasn't trying to make excuses for Chomsky, but instead point out that he is not correct 100 % of the time. I have disagreed with statements / opinions in the past from Chomsky. He can be and is wrong occasionally. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:05 AM To: David Johnson Cc: J.B. Nicholson; Peace Discuss; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal Sorry, thats no excuse for someone who influences millions. If I?m wrong, who cares, as no one listens to me. But when someone of Chomsky?s stature is wrong, is has monumental consequences. > On Apr 22, 2020, at 07:58, David Johnson wrote: > > With Chomsky's latest statement that we need to vote for Joe Biden, is proof that nobody is correct 100% of the time. He is only human and hence flawed like the rest of us. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:28 AM > To: J.B. Nicholson > Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal > > > Jeff, great job of providing us with the information necessary to delve beneath the surface. > > Jimmy Dore is doing a great job of doing just that. I liked his interview with Dylan Rattigan explaining what the oil crisis is, to those of us weak on the details. > > Though I generally don?t like focusing on the individual, Jimmy does it in order to uncloak the duplicity of AOC, which is necessary for those who think AOC or others who have risen to media attention, saying all the right things, are going to save us, or challenge authority, just because they grand stand and tell us so. > > My only problem with his latest was he targeted Pelosi as the all encompassing evil. She is, but the assumption that some may take from this is ? if we just remove Pelosi, all will be well.? No it won?t change a thing, as she is just the front man for so many others, owned by corporate capitalism. What we need is system change, and if any one dares challenge it within the system, they will be shut down, not promoted as ?celebrities of the left.? > > I didn?t see the interview with Jane McAlevey, or rebuttal in relation to Chomsky?s comments on the election. However, in looking at those promoting Janes? books, most are mainstream Democrats rarely challenging the system, other than Naomi Klein, who does so now with nuance and caution. > > As to Chomsky on the upcoming election. I read the interview done by Jacobin. Chomsky as usual defines the problem as capitalism. Then he recommends Biden. How can the ?greatest intellectual alive today" after analyzing the problem, then suggest a solution that supports the problem. > > It maybe hubris on my part to challenge ?the greatest intellectual alive today," someone who eight years ago, reading his many books, enlightened me to the many crimes the USG committed over the years, as well as who and why. Based upon everything I learned from him, I have to ask why? I agree global warming and nuclear war are real and serious impending threats to the very existence of mankind, but doing the same thing over and over again, supporting the same people as previous, the same who gave rise to a Trump, representing our system of corruption and decay, is insanity. > > Chomsky has never supported a third Party, says little of people in the streets, mass movements or challenging our government, whoever the administration, so I am a bit bewildered by his reluctance to challenge the system as is necessary. > > > > > >> On Apr 22, 2020, at 06:31, David Johnson via Peace wrote: >> >> Jeff, >> >> Thanks for composing these news digests. They are very helpful references. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:51 PM >> To: Peace Discuss; Peace >> Subject: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal >> >> Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On >> today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: >> Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". >> >> https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ >> >> McAlevey provides specific actionable advice on how to form a union, which unions are >> most likely to be amenable to work with you (nurses & teachers' unions), and she >> clearly calls for strikes among the workers we now see are indispensable (among them: >> grocery store clerks & delivery drivers not Wall St. traders despite what the >> establishment media tells you). My main objection is McAlevey's fleeting references >> to the sex of the amenable workers and Trump Derangement Syndrome[2]. But fortunately >> Dore is neither put off by it nor mired in that side issue in the interview. >> >> McAlevey, in response to what union busters aim to accomplish, quoted a union buster >> which I found referenced below: >> >> https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-are-unions-20140227-story.html#axzz2uYgJ10ss >> https://archive.md/C9aG2 >> >>> Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union >>> organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to >>> examine ?Confessions of a Union Buster,?[1] the heartfelt memoir Martin Jay Levitt >>> published in 1993. >>> >>> ?I come from a very dirty business,? Levitt told a carpenters union audience >>> (after his conversion). As he described it, ?the enemy was the collective spirit. >>> I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it, choked it, >>> bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom into a >>> united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant." >> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-0gxca-VxM >> >> [2] Dore is much more pointed in his criticism of 'any blue will do' (a slogan >> advocating that one should support any Democrat no matter who they are, what their >> history is, or what they say they'll support/oppose) in his take on Noam Chomsky's >> endorsement of Joe Biden. You can also find Chomsky's advice to vote for Biden on >> recent episodes of Democracy Now and in an interview with Medhi Hasan (which is what >> Dore focuses on). >> >> >> >> And Dore & co. are still some the very few commentators with a proper sense of >> priority on how much the Democrats are not working for you. The so-called >> "progressive" Democrats -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, >> and the rest of "the squad", as well as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all >> been described as progressive -- are all useless to you because of how all but a >> handful of Congresspeople voted for the CARES Act (everyone voting in the Senate went >> along with it and those few objectors in the House sounded like they were all men, >> judging by the voice vote given). >> >> Despite that, AOC continues to lecture and gaslight us about our collective needs and >> not clearly and plainly say that she voted against CARES (because she actually voted >> for CARES and she knows it), didn't put in any effort to call for a recorded vote >> (and for a lame reason[3] that is no excuse to not call for a recorded vote), and >> didn't challenge her leadership on a recorded vote or the bill. The Democrats are >> fully behind our collective immiseration. See >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwiP6JT3mQ for Dore's response and this is filled >> with questions the establishment-friendly media aren't asking. For all of her >> time-consuming bluster, AOC has not demonstrated the spine to appear on Jimmy Dore's >> show despite having an open invitation to appear so he can put these questions >> directly to her. >> >> See Dore's interview with Dylan Ratigan in >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oERncbzPY on how anyone living on a stock-based >> retirement plan or pension is in fiscal trouble too. >> >> [3] Rep. Barbara Lee stood out as the sole House vote against the authorization to >> grant the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. She lost that fight. But she can forever turn >> to her constituents and argue that she made the correct call when it counted. AOC >> can't do that. We've heard the voice vote (which sounded like a small group of all >> men) and AOC has been cagey about describing her own choices (she never clearly said >> she voted against CARES, won't given Rep. Thomas Massey credit where credit is due >> for objecting to the point where the House had to have a voice vote, and erroneously >> claims that it would have "needlessly endanger[ed] folks" to have objected without 43 >> other Reps. joining her). These are reasons for her constituents to vote AOC out. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From mkb3 at icloud.com Wed Apr 22 17:12:56 2020 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:12:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Voting_in_November=E2=80=A6?= Message-ID: <29441A6B-2F4D-4335-9408-D31E2C8BEC3F@icloud.com> A long but thoughtfully reasoned article by Jeremy Scahill: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/20/donald-trump-joe-biden-2020-presidential-election-voting/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter ?mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 22 17:29:08 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:29:08 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: <007301d618c5$e3e57ce0$abb076a0$@comcast.net> References: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> <005601d618aa$44241290$cc6c37b0$@comcast.net> <006201d618b6$7c1ce030$7456a090$@comcast.net> <007301d618c5$e3e57ce0$abb076a0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: David, you?re absolutely correct. This is why we must analyze and not follow blindly what ?experts,? or those we respect suggest we do. It?s one thing to follow a suggestion related to a ?good restaurant, book or film,? as everyone has their own opinion, or perspective, and I shouldn?t begrudge or criticize the person who suggested it if I?m displeased, as it was my choice. However, when a leader makes suggestions and we follow blindly, without analyzing, or delving beneath the surface that is another situation altogether. This is why I appreciate the information, the links and summaries provided by J.B. with discussion and analysis from others in relation to that which holds so many lives in the balance. > On Apr 22, 2020, at 09:48, David Johnson wrote: > > Karen, > > I wasn't trying to make excuses for Chomsky, but instead point out that he is not correct 100 % of the time. I have disagreed with statements / opinions in the past from Chomsky. > He can be and is wrong occasionally. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:05 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: J.B. Nicholson; Peace Discuss; Peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal > > Sorry, thats no excuse for someone who influences millions. If I?m wrong, who cares, as no one listens to me. But when someone of Chomsky?s stature is wrong, is has monumental consequences. > > >> On Apr 22, 2020, at 07:58, David Johnson wrote: >> >> With Chomsky's latest statement that we need to vote for Joe Biden, is proof that nobody is correct 100% of the time. He is only human and hence flawed like the rest of us. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:28 AM >> To: J.B. Nicholson >> Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace >> Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal >> >> >> Jeff, great job of providing us with the information necessary to delve beneath the surface. >> >> Jimmy Dore is doing a great job of doing just that. I liked his interview with Dylan Rattigan explaining what the oil crisis is, to those of us weak on the details. >> >> Though I generally don?t like focusing on the individual, Jimmy does it in order to uncloak the duplicity of AOC, which is necessary for those who think AOC or others who have risen to media attention, saying all the right things, are going to save us, or challenge authority, just because they grand stand and tell us so. >> >> My only problem with his latest was he targeted Pelosi as the all encompassing evil. She is, but the assumption that some may take from this is ? if we just remove Pelosi, all will be well.? No it won?t change a thing, as she is just the front man for so many others, owned by corporate capitalism. What we need is system change, and if any one dares challenge it within the system, they will be shut down, not promoted as ?celebrities of the left.? >> >> I didn?t see the interview with Jane McAlevey, or rebuttal in relation to Chomsky?s comments on the election. However, in looking at those promoting Janes? books, most are mainstream Democrats rarely challenging the system, other than Naomi Klein, who does so now with nuance and caution. >> >> As to Chomsky on the upcoming election. I read the interview done by Jacobin. Chomsky as usual defines the problem as capitalism. Then he recommends Biden. How can the ?greatest intellectual alive today" after analyzing the problem, then suggest a solution that supports the problem. >> >> It maybe hubris on my part to challenge ?the greatest intellectual alive today," someone who eight years ago, reading his many books, enlightened me to the many crimes the USG committed over the years, as well as who and why. Based upon everything I learned from him, I have to ask why? I agree global warming and nuclear war are real and serious impending threats to the very existence of mankind, but doing the same thing over and over again, supporting the same people as previous, the same who gave rise to a Trump, representing our system of corruption and decay, is insanity. >> >> Chomsky has never supported a third Party, says little of people in the streets, mass movements or challenging our government, whoever the administration, so I am a bit bewildered by his reluctance to challenge the system as is necessary. >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 22, 2020, at 06:31, David Johnson via Peace wrote: >>> >>> Jeff, >>> >>> Thanks for composing these news digests. They are very helpful references. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:51 PM >>> To: Peace Discuss; Peace >>> Subject: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal >>> >>> Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On >>> today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: >>> Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". >>> >>> https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ >>> >>> McAlevey provides specific actionable advice on how to form a union, which unions are >>> most likely to be amenable to work with you (nurses & teachers' unions), and she >>> clearly calls for strikes among the workers we now see are indispensable (among them: >>> grocery store clerks & delivery drivers not Wall St. traders despite what the >>> establishment media tells you). My main objection is McAlevey's fleeting references >>> to the sex of the amenable workers and Trump Derangement Syndrome[2]. But fortunately >>> Dore is neither put off by it nor mired in that side issue in the interview. >>> >>> McAlevey, in response to what union busters aim to accomplish, quoted a union buster >>> which I found referenced below: >>> >>> https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-are-unions-20140227-story.html#axzz2uYgJ10ss >>> https://archive.md/C9aG2 >>> >>>> Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union >>>> organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to >>>> examine ?Confessions of a Union Buster,?[1] the heartfelt memoir Martin Jay Levitt >>>> published in 1993. >>>> >>>> ?I come from a very dirty business,? Levitt told a carpenters union audience >>>> (after his conversion). As he described it, ?the enemy was the collective spirit. >>>> I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it, choked it, >>>> bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom into a >>>> united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant." >>> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-0gxca-VxM >>> >>> [2] Dore is much more pointed in his criticism of 'any blue will do' (a slogan >>> advocating that one should support any Democrat no matter who they are, what their >>> history is, or what they say they'll support/oppose) in his take on Noam Chomsky's >>> endorsement of Joe Biden. You can also find Chomsky's advice to vote for Biden on >>> recent episodes of Democracy Now and in an interview with Medhi Hasan (which is what >>> Dore focuses on). >>> >>> >>> >>> And Dore & co. are still some the very few commentators with a proper sense of >>> priority on how much the Democrats are not working for you. The so-called >>> "progressive" Democrats -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, >>> and the rest of "the squad", as well as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all >>> been described as progressive -- are all useless to you because of how all but a >>> handful of Congresspeople voted for the CARES Act (everyone voting in the Senate went >>> along with it and those few objectors in the House sounded like they were all men, >>> judging by the voice vote given). >>> >>> Despite that, AOC continues to lecture and gaslight us about our collective needs and >>> not clearly and plainly say that she voted against CARES (because she actually voted >>> for CARES and she knows it), didn't put in any effort to call for a recorded vote >>> (and for a lame reason[3] that is no excuse to not call for a recorded vote), and >>> didn't challenge her leadership on a recorded vote or the bill. The Democrats are >>> fully behind our collective immiseration. See >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwiP6JT3mQ for Dore's response and this is filled >>> with questions the establishment-friendly media aren't asking. For all of her >>> time-consuming bluster, AOC has not demonstrated the spine to appear on Jimmy Dore's >>> show despite having an open invitation to appear so he can put these questions >>> directly to her. >>> >>> See Dore's interview with Dylan Ratigan in >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oERncbzPY on how anyone living on a stock-based >>> retirement plan or pension is in fiscal trouble too. >>> >>> [3] Rep. Barbara Lee stood out as the sole House vote against the authorization to >>> grant the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. She lost that fight. But she can forever turn >>> to her constituents and argue that she made the correct call when it counted. AOC >>> can't do that. We've heard the voice vote (which sounded like a small group of all >>> men) and AOC has been cagey about describing her own choices (she never clearly said >>> she voted against CARES, won't given Rep. Thomas Massey credit where credit is due >>> for objecting to the point where the House had to have a voice vote, and erroneously >>> claims that it would have "needlessly endanger[ed] folks" to have objected without 43 >>> other Reps. joining her). These are reasons for her constituents to vote AOC out. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > From a-fields at illinois.edu Wed Apr 22 19:40:03 2020 From: a-fields at illinois.edu (Fields, A Belden) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: <006201d618b6$7c1ce030$7456a090$@comcast.net> References: <006201d618b6$7c1ce030$7456a090$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Or, it might be proof that at 90 he still has his wits about him. Belden Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 22, 2020, at 9:59 AM, David Johnson via Peace wrote: > > ?With Chomsky's latest statement that we need to vote for Joe Biden, is proof that nobody is correct 100% of the time. He is only human and hence flawed like the rest of us. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:28 AM > To: J.B. Nicholson > Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal > > > Jeff, great job of providing us with the information necessary to delve beneath the surface. > > Jimmy Dore is doing a great job of doing just that. I liked his interview with Dylan Rattigan explaining what the oil crisis is, to those of us weak on the details. > > Though I generally don?t like focusing on the individual, Jimmy does it in order to uncloak the duplicity of AOC, which is necessary for those who think AOC or others who have risen to media attention, saying all the right things, are going to save us, or challenge authority, just because they grand stand and tell us so. > > My only problem with his latest was he targeted Pelosi as the all encompassing evil. She is, but the assumption that some may take from this is ? if we just remove Pelosi, all will be well.? No it won?t change a thing, as she is just the front man for so many others, owned by corporate capitalism. What we need is system change, and if any one dares challenge it within the system, they will be shut down, not promoted as ?celebrities of the left.? > > I didn?t see the interview with Jane McAlevey, or rebuttal in relation to Chomsky?s comments on the election. However, in looking at those promoting Janes? books, most are mainstream Democrats rarely challenging the system, other than Naomi Klein, who does so now with nuance and caution. > > As to Chomsky on the upcoming election. I read the interview done by Jacobin. Chomsky as usual defines the problem as capitalism. Then he recommends Biden. How can the ?greatest intellectual alive today" after analyzing the problem, then suggest a solution that supports the problem. > > It maybe hubris on my part to challenge ?the greatest intellectual alive today," someone who eight years ago, reading his many books, enlightened me to the many crimes the USG committed over the years, as well as who and why. Based upon everything I learned from him, I have to ask why? I agree global warming and nuclear war are real and serious impending threats to the very existence of mankind, but doing the same thing over and over again, supporting the same people as previous, the same who gave rise to a Trump, representing our system of corruption and decay, is insanity. > > Chomsky has never supported a third Party, says little of people in the streets, mass movements or challenging our government, whoever the administration, so I am a bit bewildered by his reluctance to challenge the system as is necessary. > > > > > >> On Apr 22, 2020, at 06:31, David Johnson via Peace wrote: >> >> Jeff, >> >> Thanks for composing these news digests. They are very helpful references. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:51 PM >> To: Peace Discuss; Peace >> Subject: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal >> >> Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On >> today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: >> Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". >> >> https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ >> >> McAlevey provides specific actionable advice on how to form a union, which unions are >> most likely to be amenable to work with you (nurses & teachers' unions), and she >> clearly calls for strikes among the workers we now see are indispensable (among them: >> grocery store clerks & delivery drivers not Wall St. traders despite what the >> establishment media tells you). My main objection is McAlevey's fleeting references >> to the sex of the amenable workers and Trump Derangement Syndrome[2]. But fortunately >> Dore is neither put off by it nor mired in that side issue in the interview. >> >> McAlevey, in response to what union busters aim to accomplish, quoted a union buster >> which I found referenced below: >> >> https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-are-unions-20140227-story.html#axzz2uYgJ10ss >> https://archive.md/C9aG2 >> >>> Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union >>> organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to >>> examine ?Confessions of a Union Buster,?[1] the heartfelt memoir Martin Jay Levitt >>> published in 1993. >>> >>> ?I come from a very dirty business,? Levitt told a carpenters union audience >>> (after his conversion). As he described it, ?the enemy was the collective spirit. >>> I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it, choked it, >>> bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom into a >>> united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant." >> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-0gxca-VxM >> >> [2] Dore is much more pointed in his criticism of 'any blue will do' (a slogan >> advocating that one should support any Democrat no matter who they are, what their >> history is, or what they say they'll support/oppose) in his take on Noam Chomsky's >> endorsement of Joe Biden. You can also find Chomsky's advice to vote for Biden on >> recent episodes of Democracy Now and in an interview with Medhi Hasan (which is what >> Dore focuses on). >> >> >> >> And Dore & co. are still some the very few commentators with a proper sense of >> priority on how much the Democrats are not working for you. The so-called >> "progressive" Democrats -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, >> and the rest of "the squad", as well as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all >> been described as progressive -- are all useless to you because of how all but a >> handful of Congresspeople voted for the CARES Act (everyone voting in the Senate went >> along with it and those few objectors in the House sounded like they were all men, >> judging by the voice vote given). >> >> Despite that, AOC continues to lecture and gaslight us about our collective needs and >> not clearly and plainly say that she voted against CARES (because she actually voted >> for CARES and she knows it), didn't put in any effort to call for a recorded vote >> (and for a lame reason[3] that is no excuse to not call for a recorded vote), and >> didn't challenge her leadership on a recorded vote or the bill. The Democrats are >> fully behind our collective immiseration. See >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwiP6JT3mQ for Dore's response and this is filled >> with questions the establishment-friendly media aren't asking. For all of her >> time-consuming bluster, AOC has not demonstrated the spine to appear on Jimmy Dore's >> show despite having an open invitation to appear so he can put these questions >> directly to her. >> >> See Dore's interview with Dylan Ratigan in >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oERncbzPY on how anyone living on a stock-based >> retirement plan or pension is in fiscal trouble too. >> >> [3] Rep. Barbara Lee stood out as the sole House vote against the authorization to >> grant the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. She lost that fight. But she can forever turn >> to her constituents and argue that she made the correct call when it counted. AOC >> can't do that. We've heard the voice vote (which sounded like a small group of all >> men) and AOC has been cagey about describing her own choices (she never clearly said >> she voted against CARES, won't given Rep. Thomas Massey credit where credit is due >> for objecting to the point where the House had to have a voice vote, and erroneously >> claims that it would have "needlessly endanger[ed] folks" to have objected without 43 >> other Reps. joining her). These are reasons for her constituents to vote AOC out. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 22 23:00:54 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:00:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: References: <006201d618b6$7c1ce030$7456a090$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00c401d618f9$e151dc10$a3f59430$@comcast.net> No Belden, On the contrary. That is the one thing that Chomsky has been wrong about consistently for the last 30 YEARS. Same failed strategy. And where has this " Lesser evil " voting gotten us ? Look where we are at compared to 30 years ago. The Democratic party becoming worse by the year. Further and further to the right. Of course the bottom line problem here from your perspective is that 30 years of Neo-Liberal austerity obviously hasn't adversely affected you. So naturally you don't have a clue and could care less. Funny, I have NEVER heard you ever mention Chomsky until now. You should read his master work " Manufacturing Consent " . David J. -----Original Message----- From: Fields, A Belden [mailto:a-fields at illinois.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 2:40 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Karen Aram; J.B. Nicholson; Peace Discuss; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal Or, it might be proof that at 90 he still has his wits about him. Belden Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 22, 2020, at 9:59 AM, David Johnson via Peace wrote: > > ?With Chomsky's latest statement that we need to vote for Joe Biden, is proof that nobody is correct 100% of the time. He is only human and hence flawed like the rest of us. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:28 AM > To: J.B. Nicholson > Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal > > > Jeff, great job of providing us with the information necessary to delve beneath the surface. > > Jimmy Dore is doing a great job of doing just that. I liked his interview with Dylan Rattigan explaining what the oil crisis is, to those of us weak on the details. > > Though I generally don?t like focusing on the individual, Jimmy does it in order to uncloak the duplicity of AOC, which is necessary for those who think AOC or others who have risen to media attention, saying all the right things, are going to save us, or challenge authority, just because they grand stand and tell us so. > > My only problem with his latest was he targeted Pelosi as the all encompassing evil. She is, but the assumption that some may take from this is ? if we just remove Pelosi, all will be well.? No it won?t change a thing, as she is just the front man for so many others, owned by corporate capitalism. What we need is system change, and if any one dares challenge it within the system, they will be shut down, not promoted as ?celebrities of the left.? > > I didn?t see the interview with Jane McAlevey, or rebuttal in relation to Chomsky?s comments on the election. However, in looking at those promoting Janes? books, most are mainstream Democrats rarely challenging the system, other than Naomi Klein, who does so now with nuance and caution. > > As to Chomsky on the upcoming election. I read the interview done by Jacobin. Chomsky as usual defines the problem as capitalism. Then he recommends Biden. How can the ?greatest intellectual alive today" after analyzing the problem, then suggest a solution that supports the problem. > > It maybe hubris on my part to challenge ?the greatest intellectual alive today," someone who eight years ago, reading his many books, enlightened me to the many crimes the USG committed over the years, as well as who and why. Based upon everything I learned from him, I have to ask why? I agree global warming and nuclear war are real and serious impending threats to the very existence of mankind, but doing the same thing over and over again, supporting the same people as previous, the same who gave rise to a Trump, representing our system of corruption and decay, is insanity. > > Chomsky has never supported a third Party, says little of people in the streets, mass movements or challenging our government, whoever the administration, so I am a bit bewildered by his reluctance to challenge the system as is necessary. > > > > > >> On Apr 22, 2020, at 06:31, David Johnson via Peace wrote: >> >> Jeff, >> >> Thanks for composing these news digests. They are very helpful references. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:51 PM >> To: Peace Discuss; Peace >> Subject: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal >> >> Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On >> today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: >> Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". >> >> https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ >> >> McAlevey provides specific actionable advice on how to form a union, which unions are >> most likely to be amenable to work with you (nurses & teachers' unions), and she >> clearly calls for strikes among the workers we now see are indispensable (among them: >> grocery store clerks & delivery drivers not Wall St. traders despite what the >> establishment media tells you). My main objection is McAlevey's fleeting references >> to the sex of the amenable workers and Trump Derangement Syndrome[2]. But fortunately >> Dore is neither put off by it nor mired in that side issue in the interview. >> >> McAlevey, in response to what union busters aim to accomplish, quoted a union buster >> which I found referenced below: >> >> https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-are-unions-20140227-story.html#axzz2uYgJ10ss >> https://archive.md/C9aG2 >> >>> Over the years, employers have developed an exquisite arsenal against union >>> organizing. For a succinct description of how the war is waged, Soltas needs to >>> examine ?Confessions of a Union Buster,?[1] the heartfelt memoir Martin Jay Levitt >>> published in 1993. >>> >>> ?I come from a very dirty business,? Levitt told a carpenters union audience >>> (after his conversion). As he described it, ?the enemy was the collective spirit. >>> I got hold of that spirit while it was still a seedling; I poisoned it, choked it, >>> bludgeoned it if I had to, anything to be sure it would never blossom into a >>> united work force, the dreaded foe of any corporate tyrant." >> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-0gxca-VxM >> >> [2] Dore is much more pointed in his criticism of 'any blue will do' (a slogan >> advocating that one should support any Democrat no matter who they are, what their >> history is, or what they say they'll support/oppose) in his take on Noam Chomsky's >> endorsement of Joe Biden. You can also find Chomsky's advice to vote for Biden on >> recent episodes of Democracy Now and in an interview with Medhi Hasan (which is what >> Dore focuses on). >> >> >> >> And Dore & co. are still some the very few commentators with a proper sense of >> priority on how much the Democrats are not working for you. The so-called >> "progressive" Democrats -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, >> and the rest of "the squad", as well as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all >> been described as progressive -- are all useless to you because of how all but a >> handful of Congresspeople voted for the CARES Act (everyone voting in the Senate went >> along with it and those few objectors in the House sounded like they were all men, >> judging by the voice vote given). >> >> Despite that, AOC continues to lecture and gaslight us about our collective needs and >> not clearly and plainly say that she voted against CARES (because she actually voted >> for CARES and she knows it), didn't put in any effort to call for a recorded vote >> (and for a lame reason[3] that is no excuse to not call for a recorded vote), and >> didn't challenge her leadership on a recorded vote or the bill. The Democrats are >> fully behind our collective immiseration. See >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwiP6JT3mQ for Dore's response and this is filled >> with questions the establishment-friendly media aren't asking. For all of her >> time-consuming bluster, AOC has not demonstrated the spine to appear on Jimmy Dore's >> show despite having an open invitation to appear so he can put these questions >> directly to her. >> >> See Dore's interview with Dylan Ratigan in >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oERncbzPY on how anyone living on a stock-based >> retirement plan or pension is in fiscal trouble too. >> >> [3] Rep. Barbara Lee stood out as the sole House vote against the authorization to >> grant the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. She lost that fight. But she can forever turn >> to her constituents and argue that she made the correct call when it counted. AOC >> can't do that. We've heard the voice vote (which sounded like a small group of all >> men) and AOC has been cagey about describing her own choices (she never clearly said >> she voted against CARES, won't given Rep. Thomas Massey credit where credit is due >> for objecting to the point where the House had to have a voice vote, and erroneously >> claims that it would have "needlessly endanger[ed] folks" to have objected without 43 >> other Reps. joining her). These are reasons for her constituents to vote AOC out. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 22 23:13:30 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:13:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Krystal Ball: Young voters to Democratic party: SCREW YOU Message-ID: <00c601d618fb$a3b69c40$eb23d4c0$@comcast.net> Krystal Ball: Young voters to Democratic party: SCREW YOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7DJTKsE8Zc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 18:51:33 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?By_November=2C_Let=E2=80=99s_Make_Bide?= =?utf-8?q?n_the_Harold_Macmillan_of_Imperial_Commitment_Shedding?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10159438603577656 By November, Let?s Make Joe Biden the Harold Macmillan of Imperial Commitment Shedding Here?s my ?moonshot? for the period between now and the November election. Let?s make Joe Biden the Harold Macmillan of Imperial Commitment Shedding. In particular, let?s make Joe Biden sign the four corners of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 with his John Hancock. Especially Section 5c of the WPR, where it says that a simple majority of both houses of Congress can end an unauthorized war by passing a concurrent resolution. As a practical matter, strict enforcement of the four corners of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 are the best tools we have right now for reducing the imperial commitments of the United States so that we can focus our resources and attention on ?programs of social uplift? at home, as MLK put it. Harold Macmillan, a British Conservative, served as Prime Minister of the UK from 1957 to 1963. On February 3, 1960, Macmillan delivered a speech to the then-apartheid South African Parliament which was as important to world history as the 1946 ?Iron Curtain? speech in Missouri of former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill, under whom Macmillan had served. Churchill?s 1946 Missouri speech was a mobilization speech for the Cold War. Macmillan?s 1960 speech in South Africa was a demobilization speech for the imperial commitments of the UK in Africa. Macmillan?s 1960 speech to the apartheid South African Parliament is known to history as the ?Wind of Change? speech. The moniker comes from this famous passage: ?The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.? In this speech, Macmillan signaled that the UK would support a rapid transition to decolonization in British Africa, and that the UK was going to cut loose politically from white minority rule in southern Africa. Macmillan?s speech represented a belief among some but not all leaders of the British Conservatives that trying to maintain the status quo in British Africa was a losing proposition in the long run and that Britain would be better off in the long run by getting in front of the inevitable change and trying to help lead it than sticking its head in the sand and fighting a bloody and ultimately futile battle to maintain the status quo like the French did in Algeria and Vietnam. What U.S. foreign policy needs most now to reduce the catastrophic harm it is causing to Americans and other human beings is a Harold Macmillan, a Mikhail Gorbachev, an F. W. de Klerk, a ?Nixon to China? on a global scale, a leader from ?within the system? who accepts that the post-World War II ?system? of U.S. global hegemony can never be restored and that rather than a U.S. President who tries to restore it we need a U.S. President who acknowledges that it can?t be restored and tries to lead a smoother transition towards a post-U.S. hegemony world than the one we are experiencing now. Many of us hoped that Barack Obama would be that President. Those hopes were largely disappointed. Many of us hoped that Bernie Sanders would be that President. That door is now closed. Could history now choose Joe Biden for this role? Stranger things have happened. Since this is the only game in town now, we might as well try our luck. Trump ran against the U.S. Empire. He lied. What else is there to say? He lied. As President, he doubled down on U.S. imperial commitments. He didn?t end any war. He tightened the U.S. embrace of the Saudi regime. He escalated the regime change policies he ran against. In practice, Trump has been the opposite of a Macmillan. In practice, Trump has been like the Soviet generals who tried to overthrow Gorbachev because they wouldn?t accept Gorbachev?s assertion that the Soviet Union?s foreign commitments had to be reduced to enable the program of domestic reform that Gorbachev wanted to pursue. Why should we put any energy into pushing Biden to be this President now? First of all, because it?s the only game in town. It?s Trump or Biden now, and it?s not Trump, so by process of elimination, that only leaves Biden. We might as well look for our wallet near the streetlight, because there?s zero hope of finding it anywhere else. Second, because regardless of their personal histories or personal characteristics, Biden represents different constituencies than Trump. In the United States today, most American militarists are Republicans. Importantly, not all Republicans are American militarists; importantly, not all American militarists are Republicans. But most American militarists are Republicans. Likewise, most Americans who support a program of domestic economic and social reform are Democrats. Need I say it, or is it already obvious? Not everybody who supports a program of domestic economic and social reform is a Democrat. Not all Democrats support a program domestic economic and social reform. But most Americans who support a program of domestic economic and social reform are Democrats. So among Democrats we can see a substantial group of people who both most want a US President to be the Harold Macmillan of demobilizing from U.S. imperial commitments and are paying the biggest price for the failure to have such a U.S. president in terms of the domestic costs of forgoing reforms for social improvement at home. And these are the people we should try to organize to push Joe Biden now to be the Harold Macmillan of U.S. foreign policy reform, reducing imperial commitments. Note what I haven?t said here, anywhere. I have not encouraged anyone to vote for Joe Biden. I have not encouraged anyone to vote against Joe Biden. I have been Switzerland on that question here. I?m putting that question to the side for the purposes of this discussion. Even if we go hide in a cave for the next seven months, the odds are good that Joe Biden will be the next President of the United States. If we care about reducing the harm caused to Americans and other human beings by the American Empire - and if you don?t care, I can?t imagine why you?ve read this far - why not do what we can in the next seven months to push Joe Biden to be the Harold Macmillan of reducing U.S. imperial commitments, in the Overton Window in which he is most vulnerable to U.S. public opinion? In the opening innings of the fight he led towards universal health insurance, Barack Obama said: the health insurance companies have to be at the table. But they can?t own the table. This is the vision we should push for in the international relations of the United States in the Joe Biden Administration. Neither isolationism, nor unilateralism, nor American Exceptionalism, nor American hegemony. We want the U.S. to be at the table, but we don?t want the U.S. to try to own the table. If we?re honest, this would represent almost as big a break from many past policies pursued by Democrats as it would from past policies pursued by Republicans. Acknowledged. But it?s the only game in town. We might as well ?give it the old college try,? as my mother used to say. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Apr 23 23:31:49 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:31:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Videos run during AOTA & NFN timeslots Message-ID: <317e6737-7946-135c-669f-a2df3440e36f@forestfield.org> I recommended the following to run during AWARE on the Air & News from Neptune's timeslots. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_9j6aquaY -- The Intercept: Glenn Greenwald's "System Update" episode (1h 21m 08s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WeZ7Uvx5w8 (3m 19s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzWd7OwP2e8 -- RT: report on court case against Spanish so-called security firm that spied on Assange's fiancee and children (5m 58s) COVID-19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gINlapady84 -- RT: documentary on the class divide in New York exposed by COVID-19 (17m 59s) Venezuela: coup attempts continue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WGKRu3djLA -- RT: interview with economist Prof. Richard Wolff on Guaid? & the US seizing control of $342M of Venezuela's money (6m 36s) Iran & Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J3dLd2BpyI -- RT: Is the US exploiting COVID-19 against Iran & Syria? (25m 46s) China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbRRzJXNCg8 -- Grayzone: China's reality on the ground, Anya Parampil interview with Beijing-based journalist Daniel Alan Bey (24m 40s) Coming soon: Jimmy Dore interviews Chris Hedges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sejW3NMzogo is live now and the archived video URL should be available soon and promises to offer some interesting analysis on recent political events including the US bailing out big businesses, why the largest bloc of registered American voters don't vote for POTUS, and whether anyone who voted for the bailout CARES bill (now law) will get voted out of office for doing so without even trying to get a recorded vote. I also recommend keeping an eye on Greenwald's new show "System Update with Glenn Greenwald" at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLW0Gy9pTgVntTChFgj0xwMrsc1GO32-DZ The latest episode on Assange & WikiLeaks (titled "The Persecution of Julian Assange") is very good. That episode has Greenwald and guests who are all in the know and each express themselves clearly: Assange's lawyer and a Washington Post journalist -- yes, they still have a few of those! -- who reports on the facts of the case against Assange and not the emotional outbursts of hatred. -J From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Apr 24 01:15:24 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 20:15:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?By_November=2C_Let=E2=80=99s_Make_Bide?= =?utf-8?q?n_the_Harold_Macmillan_of_Imperial_Commitment_Shedding?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b3dca57-63be-4b6e-1d86-64e2d285dae5@forestfield.org> Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > Note what I haven?t said here, anywhere. I have not encouraged anyone to > vote for Joe Biden. I have not encouraged anyone to vote against Joe Biden. > I have been Switzerland on that question here. I don't think you had to say that explicitly, it's implied in getting Joe Biden to have the power he'd need to carry out your plan. This means you're shifting from an explicit call to vote for Biden (which you can't afford particularly posting to a peace group) to an implicit call to vote for him. You're asking people to trade away the only thing they have -- their vote -- in exchange for doing things he's already pledged not to do like support Medicare for All (which Biden has already pledged to veto if it came to him as POTUS per https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/biden-says-he-wouldd-veto-medicare-for-all-as-coronavirus-focuses-attention-on-health.html) which is also something the Democratic Party also apparently will fight to disallow. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not brought any Medicare for All bill to the floor of the House. Other Democrats therefore get to carry on with their hypocrisies like AOC talking to the public and to shamefully uncritical journalists like Amy Goodman about how much we need individual payments from the government after she likely voted for the CARES Act (which was a big business bailout bill). Or Democrats taking HMO money and chatting up Medicare for All while depending on Pelosi to never call them to account for that. There's no real reason to think that we need Biden in office to effect the majoritarian changes we need to see. What we need isn't partisan calls to action benefiting one of the two 1% parties over the other. What we need is a practical strategy organizing around a specific set of actionable goals including (but not limited to) enacting Medicare for All. I don't have such a plan to hand, but I think the increased immiseration brought on by both 1% parties will help focus people's time and put aside such ridiculous distraction as wondering who is better, Trump or Biden. The Democrats don't care if Biden wins. It's likely that either Trump or Biden will be the next POTUS and either way the elites get what they want -- a reliable neocon & neolib in Biden (now with obviously decreased mental capacity) or Trump who has been (to borrow a phrase) brought to heel by years of Russiagate. An organized public will need to challenge whomever occupies the White House. > Even if we go hide in a cave for the next seven months, the odds are good that Joe > Biden will be the next President of the United States. This is an evidenceless claim. Polling on the election is almost meaningless right now but if one insists on reading something into such polling which currently puts Biden a few points ahead of Trump, it's worth noting that Hillary Clinton had higher poll ratings at this point than Biden does. What stands out to most voters is what happened in 2016 where most establishment-friendly news outlets gave Hillary Clinton odds on being the winner and yet Donald Trump was duly elected instead (for reasons the establishment-friendly media won't dare get into hence we get endless Russiagate lies). We've yet to see a proper reckoning and apology for such obviously shoddy reporting from so many outlets, or giving credit where credit is due to those few who accurately predicted that Trump would win (one exception is local News from Neptune guest Ed Mandel who accurately predicted Trump's win and has rightly received credit for his correct assessment on-air). > In the opening innings of the fight he led towards universal health insurance, > Barack Obama said: the health insurance companies have to be at the table. In other words, Obama did not fight for making our current single-payer Medicare system universal (covering all Americans). He fought for the HMOs and won with a healthcare plan written by the HMOs which was largely what RomneyCare offered (suggesting that as far as health care goes it wouldn't have mattered if Romney had won). Even when HR676 (the late John Conyers' Medicare for All bill) was ready to be brought to the floor of the House for a vote and when the Democrats had a majority in the House & Senate we didn't get Medicare for All. The situation we see with Medicare for All bills is indistinguishable from the HMOs recognizing that having such bills written and ready to bring to the floor is a prerequisite distraction for continuing to let HMOs dictate US healthcare delivery. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Apr 24 13:42:28 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 08:42:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] National Call tonight! Message-ID: <003301d61a3e$332c8ae0$9985a0a0$@comcast.net> From: Nick Brana, Movement for a People's Party [mailto:Organize at PeoplesParty.org] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 4:26 PM To: Bill Subject: National Call tonight! Since Bernie dropped out, progressives are coming out of the woodworks saying that they are DONE with lesser evil voting and are leaving the Democratic Party. Not even Bernie's endorsement has tempered the progressive movement's disgust with Biden and rebellion against this corporate party. Join our National Call at 8:30 pm ET / 5:30 pm PT tonight to hear how each one of us can help turn this momentum into a major new party and end corporate politics in our country for once and for all. Sign up here. Google search trends for the past month show that #DemEnter doesn't even register at one percent of the search traffic for #DemExit and #NeverBiden. The latter hashtags have gone trending nationally repeatedly over the last few weeks. Dozens of progressive groups, journalists, and thought leaders are saying enough is enough. Jimmy Dore had me on in a video that got 100,000 views in less than 24 hours. Ron Placone covered us on his show last week. Lauren Steiner's Facebook live debate between me and the executive director of Progressive Democrats of America, Alan Minski, was her most popular live video ever, and viewers said we won hands down. Graham Elwood, Ron Placone, and Kim Iversen recorded a video about the need for a new party after the midwest primaries. Kim Iversen recorded her own viral video around the same time. Krish Mohan is having us on today, Jamarl Thomas is diving in tomorrow, and we're speaking with Niko House next week. Glenn Greenwald with The Intercept recently demolished the logic of voting for the lesser evil in perpetuity and said we need a new movement. Fiorella Isabel with Convo Couch says we need to work outside the Democratic Party. Kyle Kulinski with Secular Talk said he's not voting for Biden. Aaron Mat? with The Grayzone said we need a new party. DSA said they are not endorsing Biden. RoseAnn DeMoro said we need an immediate discussion on a third party. Join the National Call tonight The progressive movement is breaking with the Democrats and MPP has seen an explosion of thousands of new members and volunteers. More than 400 people attended our last national call and hundreds have joined our new Slack. You can sign up to volunteer here and read our community agreements and join Slack here. Be sure to add your name to Tim Canova's petition to the White House to replace insecure electronic voting machines with paper ballots, which have become even more necessary in this crisis. "We the American People demand Paper Ballots in the November 2020 federal elections." Meanwhile, the Democrats are doing everything in their power to reinforce the desperate need for a new party for working people. After passing the biggest multi-trillion-dollar corporate bailout in history, they skipped town for weeks leaving millions who can no longer afford food and shelter to suffer. A third of the country couldn't pay rent at the beginning of this month. Thousands of people are overwhelming food banks across the country in lines so long that they can only be traced from helicopters. The Democrats are so corrupt that they rigged an American election to nominate a Wall Street hack who is accused of rape and can't get through an interview without forgetting his own policies. Enough is enough! Join us on tonight's National Call to talk about how we take this movement to a major new party, Congress, the White House, and the political revolution that transforms this country for once and for all. In solidarity, Nick Brana National Coordinator Movement for a People's Party Please chip in if you can Image removed by sender. Donate Donate Image removed by sender. Facebook Facebook Image removed by sender. Twitter Twitter Image removed by sender. Instagram Instagram Image removed by sender. YouTube YouTube Image removed by sender. Website Website Copyright ? 2020 Movement for a People's Party, All rights reserved. Thank you subscribing on our DraftBernie.org or ForAPeoplesParty.org website. Our mailing address is: Movement for a People's Party P.O. Box 68 McLean, VA 22101-0068 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list Image removed by sender. Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 426 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Apr 24 16:56:02 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 11:56:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Victory! In-Reply-To: <5ea31510c3aca_77231234f5017177@asgworker-qmb3-15.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> References: <5ea31510c3aca_77231234f5017177@asgworker-qmb3-15.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: <005d01d61a59$3d4c7240$b7e556c0$@comcast.net> This is great news for a change ! Voters in Illinois will have options to vote for U.S. President and U.S. Senate other than the two corporate controlled parties of the Republicans and the Democrats. From: Illinois Green Party Outreach [mailto:outreach at ilgp.org] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 11:34 AM To: David Johnson Subject: Victory! David -- Illinois Greens Score Major Victory in Lawsuit! Justice is something for which we constantly struggle but only occasionally obtain in the U.S. legal system. Once in a while, though, we get a measure of it. And we are pleased to announce that this just occurred in the lawsuit we recently filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. As explained in our last newsletter, Illinois has among the most repressive ballot access laws in the nation, requiring so-called ?new? parties to gather 25,000 petition signatures from registered voters, in just 90 days, in order to get their candidates? names on the November ballot. We have achieved that monumental task a number of times in the last 20 years. However, the public-health measures now in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic made petitioning virtually impossible. Accordingly, on April 2nd, the Illinois Green Party joined with the Libertarian Party of Illinois and two independent candidates seeking ballot access in a lawsuit filed against Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker and the Illinois State Board of Elections. The lawsuit sought emergency injunctive relief from the petitioning requirement during the 2020 election cycle. Thanks to great legal work by attorneys Oliver Hall of the Center for Competitive Democracy and Ohio attorney Mark Brown (with an assist by our own Scott Summers), we not only persuaded the court, but even the defendants, that the petitioning requirements were unconstitutional under the current conditions. After some negotiating, the parties came to an agreement that was entered into this preliminary injunction order , accompanying an opinion and order by Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, explaining the legal basis for the injunction. The highlights of the preliminary injunction order are as follows: * The portions of the Election Code requiring hard copy petition signatures are enjoined (suspended) for this election cycle. * Candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties shall qualify for placement on the ballot for each office in which they had previously placed candidates on the ballot in 2018 or 2016, without having to submit any petition signatures. This covers our candidates for our presidential ticket, as well as our U.S. Senate candidate, Rockford attorney David F. Black. Three independent candidates will also qualify for the ballot based on their past ballot access status. * Other Green, Libertarian, new party or independent candidates may qualify for the ballot by submitting petition signatures equal to 10 percent of the usual legal requirement, by an extended filing deadline of August 7th. Electronic petition signatures, using a finger or computer mouse or stylus (similar to what many merchants now use for credit card signatures) will be accepted for this purpose. ?This is a great legal victory, not only for the Green and Libertarian parties, but for the voters of Illinois, who have a right to cast their ballot for the candidates and parties of their choosing,? said Illinois Green Party co-chair Rich Whitney. ?That right is ordinarily suppressed, and frequently denied altogether, by our state?s unfair ballot access laws. Ironically, the extraordinary conditions created by the pandemic both required and permitted the administrators of that unfair system to do the right thing this one time. We were also fortunate enough to have a judge who clearly understood that the Constitution required the granting of this relief.? As a result, our presidential candidate, who will either be longtime New York Green Howie Hawkins or Ohio Green Dario Hunter , will appear on the November ballot, giving Illinois voters a badly needed alternative to the dismal and nauseating choices presented by the two corporatist/war machine parties, as will our Senate candidate Black, about whom you will learn more in an upcoming newsletter. It also means that Murphysboro Green Josh Hellmann will be able to return to the ballot, joining Whitney as a candidate for Jackson County Board. This is in addition to our excellent candidates running for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) of Greater Chicago and other candidates already on the ballot in jurisdictions where we are recognized as an established party. The Green Party may be able to field a few additional candidates under the terms of the injunction; watch our newsletters for future announcements. Image removed by sender. EVGGCc_WsAAlKqk.jpg_large.jpg Can you help an ally in the cause of peace? There are only so many publishers of reliable news and information these days, and even fewer that provide reliable information on the peace and environmental movements, and on the wars, arms races and environmental hazards that make these movements so vitally necessary. One of these publishers is Nukewatch , which has been providing valuable reporting on the related threats posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear power since 1979. Funding is always a challenge for organizations and publications that stand for social progress ? including the Green Party ? even in the best of times. Under the current conditions, just as millions of workers are struggling to make ends meet, so are many of these organizations, including Nukewatch. We recently learned from one of our members that Nukewatch is now in especially dire straits. Please take a look at this excellent resource, and if you can see your way clear to help out with a small donation, please consider doing so. Chapters meetings going virtual While in-person Green Party meetings and events remain on hiatus for obvious reasons, our chapters are learning to adapt by conducting video and/or phone conference calls. If you reside in or near one of our chapters , and haven?t yet gotten involved or been involved lately, you are encouraged to connect with them as we forge ahead into campaign 2020. Here are just a few of the upcoming ?virtual? meetings scheduled: The next meeting of the 50th Ward Green Party will be held via teleconference on Sunday, May 3, at 1:00 p.m. Please contact George Milkowski at 50thwardgreens at gmail.com or call 773-262-7026 if you would like to attend this meeting. The Dupage Greens will meet Wednesday, May 13th, 7-8:30pm, via online Video/Audio Conference. Facebook event here . The Shawnee Green Party (Southern Illinois) will have a virtual meeting on Wednesday, May 13th at 6:30 p.m.; contact richwhitney at frontier.com if you do not receive notice by the list-serve. Illinois Green Party Outreach http://www.ilgp.org/ Illinois Green Party ? 213 S Wheaton Ave ? Ste 102B ? Wheaton IL 60187 ilgp.org ? Facebook ? Twitter This email was sent to davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net. To stop receiving emails, click here. Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders. Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2207 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Apr 24 23:18:02 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:18:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> References: <83e5e95c-80b0-623a-bd9f-481629c8290a@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <887da07b-c1b9-ca9d-5a59-791678a93277@forestfield.org> I wrote: > Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On > today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: > Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". > > https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ You can see these interview segments on YouTube starting today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3UeVTxZHC8 -- How to start a successful strike during crisis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH9beRXMxwk -- Many strikes are coming You can bet these will be on my list of recommended videos to play during News from Neptune's timeslot. How correct is McAlevey likely to be? I think the answer comes in the form of recent media stories such as this article from the LA Times: From https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-17/usc-coronavirus-survey > Less than half of L.A. County residents still have jobs amid coronavirus crisis > > By Jaclyn Cosgrove, Staff Writer April 17, 2020 > 7 AM > UPDATED 10:48 AM > > Because of the colossal impact that the coronavirus outbreak has had on the U.S. > economy, less than half of Los Angeles County residents ? 45% compared with 61% > in mid-March ? still hold a job, a decline of 16 percentage points, or an > estimated 1.3 million jobs, according to findings from a national survey released > Friday. > > The survey also suggests that 25.5 million jobs have been potentially lost across > the U.S. since mid-March, and that people of color, especially black Americans, > are more likely to have lost their jobs since mid-March. > > Nationally, 15% of white people said they had lost their jobs, while 18% of > Latinos and 21% of black people reported job losses. 523444_ME_Covina_3_RCG.JPG > California These striking photos reveal how California is changing > > But a significant majority of job losses, 67% nationally, were reported as > temporary layoffs. Angelenos reported similar experiences. > > ?Under normal circumstances losing a job without access to benefits would be bad > enough, but in the current situation, chances of finding a new job are likely to > be close to nonexistent,? Arie Kapteyn, director of the USC Dornsife Center for > Economic and Social Research, which administers the tracking survey, said in a > statement. ?These changes are nothing less than catastrophic for those affected.? > > The Understanding Coronavirus in America Study, led by the USC Dornsife Center, > has been surveying a panel of nearly 5,500 adults in the United States about > their perceptions and attitudes regarding the coronavirus outbreak and how it?s > affecting their lives since mid-March. And from what I'd bet will soon become one of the most looked-up Wikipedia pages -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression > Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 23% and in some countries rose as high as 33%. relative to this recent RT interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9nLsrDeB4Y -- Trump adviser Stephen Moore says jobless rate will soon reach 20%. Don't expect much from this interview with Larry King (one of two shows RT runs which scarcely challenges the establishment or the viewer's intellect, the other show being the new Dennis Miller show). But the unemployment figure is staggering. And finally consider: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nearly-a-third-of-u-s-renters-didnt-pay-april-rent-11586340000 > Nearly a Third of U.S. Apartment Renters Didn?t Pay April [in the year 2020] Rent > > Nearly a third of U.S. apartment renters didn?t pay any of their April rent > during the first week of the month, according to new data to be released Wednesday > by the National Multifamily Housing Council and a consortium of real-estate data > providers. > > The numbers are the first hard look at how many Americans are struggling to make > rent during the coronavirus pandemic. The data come in the first of weekly > reports on unpaid rent from NMHC, a landlord trade group. [...] Reports on the same survey also come from other establishment-friendly outlets: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/09/business/americans-rent-payment-trnd/index.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-fallout-onethird-of-americans-missed-rent-payments-in-april-135654889.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/april-rent-one-third-did-not-pay-multifamily-housing-council/ I point out these sources merely to drive home the point that some stories of immiseration are apparently unignorable, even for the establishment-friendly media (the same media that built on republishing WikiLeaks leaks and now tries to distance themselves from any news of how Julian Assange is being tortured and subjected to a petri dish where he may well catch Coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19). -J From brussel at illinois.edu Sat Apr 25 01:44:20 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 01:44:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Sanders' campaign to draw people into the Democratic Party, and recent Democracy Now coverage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just some impressions interspersed with your remarks. On Apr 12, 2020, at 10:08 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://soundcloud.com/whatisleftpod/preview-the-politics-of-aoc Aimee Terese has been on to AOC for quite some time, this excerpt from 11 months ago. Her co-host Benjamin Studebaker has also written about AOC on his blog, in February of last year: Much dull, supposedly erudite, gobbledygook displayed here. https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2019/02/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-seems-confused-about-race/ On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 1:39 AM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss > wrote: DN is an increasingly establishment-friendly news outlet no better than NBC, CBS, PBS, etc. The issues that drove Aaron Mate away are serious and the most recent AOC interview on a major bill is consistent with their slide into being just another establishment outlet. DN is often bad, frustrating, but not quite as bad as those others. Not with interviews of Chomsky, Naomi Klein, McKibben, Greenwald, Ellsberg, ? given voice. But yes, many other strong enlightening voices are not heard: Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mat?, and various worthy others . Goodman often shoots for headlines, and does not often ask obvious crucial follow-up questions of those she interviews. Goodman's most recent AOC interview has some talk about the bailout bill (I refuse to call it a "stimulus" because it only stimulates executives ability to buy back their stock, artificially inflate their company value, and buy out competition all while not funding the public at large. None of that helps us.). AOC seems to be aware of that, from what follows. https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/7/aoc_coronavirus_stimulus_corporate_slush_fund > JUAN GONZ?LEZ: [...] Congresswoman, could you talk about the debate that you had > within yourself in terms of whether to support this package, given the enormous > tax breaks and the direct grants and loans to corporate America? > > REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. Well, you know, I think, ultimately, this > debate, it was up to each and every member. I don?t slight any member for how they > voted. I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill, because I believe > that people will soon see the extraordinary asymmetrical assistance that went to > corporations. We?re not just talking about half a trillion dollars that went to > Wall Street, as I mentioned in my remarks. That is being leveraged to $4 trillion > for Wall Street and corporations. And what we?re seeing in payroll protection for > small businesses is just a drop in the bucket compared to that. > > But, ultimately, what this administration did was hold every hospital hostage, > hold every frontline worker hostage. And it is not an easy decision whatsoever for > any member. But, ultimately, I think that people will soon see the betrayal that > was in this bill, that was pushed forward by the administration and by Mitch > McConnell. It is completely ? it is completely unethical and inhumane, what has > been done. And we talk about the oversight of this bill. It is far too little. It > is far too flimsy. And what we have essentially done was give Steven Mnuchin a > blank check to pick and choose who this administration will reward with $4 > trillion. When AOC said "I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill" it gives the impression that she voted against the bill but she didn't exactly say that she voted against that bill. AOC won't say precisely how she voted and because DN's reportage is biased in her favor, they don't explicitly ask her how she voted using proper language and confirmation of how she voted. The Hill recently insisted "AOC DID vote no on the bailout" in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjXMdFCMDuk but there's no evidence to back that up. It's a voice vote. Sadly, The Hill quoted this same interview segment from DN to conclude that AOC voted against that bill. That's either The Hill's poor evaluation criteria at work, or they're a part of the manufacture of a proper image for AOC. The Hill, is no sympathiser of left politics.. Jimmy Dore responds to that claim from The Hill in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5uH0Dn7PfU and makes excellent points: - AOC should have called for a roll call vote, but she didn't. - AOC should have called out her leadership for not insisting on a roll call vote, but she didn't. Requiring condemnation? Give her a break; she?s been a breath of fresh air in Congress. - AOC has an invitation to go on Jimmy Dore's show and say that she did not vote for that bailout bill, but she won't go on Dore's show and say that because she knows the truth: she voted for that bill. I call this an excellent point because this is a real 'put up or shut up' moment and we need to be clear about who is on our side. Unwarranted assumption? - Therefore AOC wouldn't be using euphemisms like she "could not bring [her]self to ultimately support this bill" if she had voted against that bill. She'd be explicit and precise in her language. She'd rightfully and repeatedly boast to her base and to her constituents that she did right by them in their time of need, thus justifying putting her in power. Arguable. I'd also add: - Democracy Now (Amy Goodman) never should have accepted that vague language from AOC. Goodman should have asked "So did you vote for the bill, yes or no?" but Goodman didn't do that. We had come to expect a vastly different interview style from DN and Goodman in particular -- asking lengthy questions to that CNN reporter (Aaron Brown?) about shitty news coverage from CNN, "keeping" Pres. Clinton on the phone answering tough questions and for far longer than he wanted to talk followed by Goodman pointing out in subsequent interviews about that call that 'the most powerful man in the world doesn't know how to hang up the phone?', and so on. We don't need unclear reportage like what we got from AOC in this promotional spot posing as an interview. We get euphemisms and obscurantism all the time from other establishment-friendly outlets. DN was supposed to stand apart from that coverage and be worth charitably contributing to. As I said, Goodman does not often go for the jugular in interviews. Consider this excerpt from DN, which is typical of what they've broadcast every day recently: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/bernie_sanders_naomi_klein > NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think the main thing that I want to say this morning, Amy, is > just that I just would like to express my huge gratitude to Bernie Sanders, to his > entire family, to the many people who worked for the campaign just so tirelessly > and opened up the window of what was possible politically in this country. It was > an incredibly tough campaign. And I trust that Bernie is making the right decision > in this moment as the leader of that campaign and also as a U.S. senator. I know > that he?s not going to just go relax, as he said in his address. He intends to > fight for people, as he has always done, in this critical moment, in terms of what > kind of relief, rescue and reimagining that we do in the midst of this pandemic. > He is staying on the ballot. He is still building power in order to pressure the > Democratic Party and Joe Biden to run the most progressive campaign that they can. > So, you know, I feel so much gratitude for Senator Sanders. Similar to what Chomsky has been saying. > > More than anything else, I think what the campaign did is help us find each other. > And by ?us,? I mean that huge ?us? of the ?Not me. Us.? campaign. And he did this > not just in this campaign, but in 2016, where he really broke the spell of the > Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for four decades, that told people, who > believed, that this system that was funneling so much wealth upwards and spreading > insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution for everybody else ? everybody > who saw that system and thought there was something deeply wrong with it, what the > neoliberal era told us was that we were the ones who were crazy, we were a tiny > minority of fringe people, and that we should just accept it. And what the Sanders > campaign did in 2016 is tell us that we had been lied to, that, in fact, there > were so many millions of us who saw that this world was fundamentally upside down. > And all of the incredible organizing, including digital organizing but also > in-person organizing, wove this amazing web, and we were able to find each other > and find that we were many and they were few. And so, I don?t think we can ever > thank Bernie Sanders and the campaign enough for that. And being part of the > campaign as a volunteer ? but I did go to four states for the campaign ? was some > of the ? provided some of the greatest moments of my political life. I mean, I was > in Nevada when we won, and got to be part of that incredibly joyful moment and > just got to meet so many other like-minded people. Precisely what did Sanders do in or around 2016 that could fairly be described as "[breaking] the spell of the Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for four decades, that told people, who believed, that this system that was funneling so much wealth upwards and spreading insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution for everybody else"? Sanders used Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and some other policy ideas to attract people to a campaign he (by all available evidence) never intended (?) to win. ? or suspected or knew he wouldn?t win? What did he want to do with his campaign in your opinion? except propel his political future and convince people about the domestic morass they were experiencing. . Then he full-throatedly endorsed his neoliberal opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton. The persistent conundrum, Trump? or Clinton?. "I?ll go with Clinton" (he decided). Sanders showed his failure to go on the attack against the Dem establishment, the same failure manifested in the current campaign with the DNC and Biden. . People at the time were so pissed at how his campaign was treated that they sued the DNC corporation (a suit both DN and Sen. Sanders himself were tellingly silent about), and these disaffected Sanders supporters did not vote for Clinton (becoming part of a major reason why she lost -- she didn't keep the Obama voters across enough states with enough electoral votes to win). I believe that came to be known as "#DemExit", inspired by the portmanteau Brexit. Regarding Noam Chomsky's comments to DN about Sanders' 2020 campaign: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/noam_chomsky_bernie_sanders_campaign > Noam Chomsky: [...] Suppose Biden is elected. I would anticipate it would be > essentially a continuation of Obama ? nothing very great, but at least not totally > destructive, and opportunities for an organized public to change what is being > done, to impose pressures. What does "not totally destructive" mean? How about Climate Change, so dangerous acccording to Chomsky? Would Biden effectively fight the fossil fuel lobby? And relations with China and Russia and Cuba and Venezuela and Iran and Israel and Saudi Arabia and ? If one believes in the importance of an election as we shall be having, there seems no beneficial outcome possible (for the world). We just have to wait until people rise up. Can they? > It?s common to say now that the Sanders campaign failed. I think that?s a mistake. > I think it was an extraordinary success, completely shifted the arena of debate > and discussion. Issues that were unthinkable a couple years ago are now right in > the middle of attention. > > The worst crime he committed, in the eyes of the establishment, is not the policy > he?s proposing; it?s the fact that he was able to inspire popular movements, which > had already been developing ? Occupy, Black Lives Matter, many others ? and turn > them into an activist movement, which doesn?t just show up every couple years to > push a leader and then go home, but applies constant pressure, constant activism > and so on. That could affect a Biden administration. As Naomi K. reiterated. I disagree. With what leverage will Sanders "pressure the Democratic Party and Joe Biden to run the most progressive campaign that they can" (and what a weak standard that is) or "impose pressure?? Obviously, the leverage is the Sanders voters who have been ticked off who may not vote, or vote ?wrong?. What activist movement did Sanders build? Sanders had some people interested in his campaign and Sanders has a Democratic Party candidate incubator group ("Our Revolution"). I'd chiefly attribute increased interest in Medicare for All and Universal Basic Income now to COVID-19 lockdown/stay-at-home economic pressure (various types of strikes, people losing their jobs, to name a couple of examples) more than I'd attribute this to Sanders' speeches. And, even if we assume this activist movement exists, precisely how is that activist movement more likely to sway a theoretical Biden administration than the Trump administration? Because they they are liberal voters who the Dems want to be on their bandwagon. The most credit I can give Sanders is bringing slightly more attention to Medicare for All for a time but ultimately that credit had to stop when he abandoned that very effort in the swan song of his campaign (when he said "Let me be clear: I am not proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight continues into the future." and saying in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQV83U5Dk around 41m44s "This is not Medicare for All, we can?t pass that right now."). He did that in order to appease his real master the Democratic Party. I can't help but think that Congress knows that bailing out businesses was unnecessary and that they are all too feckless to challenge their party leadership for a better bill. So they're falling back on unchallenging PR to create better "optics" (as they say in the public relations biz). I could be convinced toward Chomsky's nicer position if he gave evidence. But there is none to be found so it's not surprising that Chomsky didn't give any evidence. As far as I can tell it's all a 'feelings'-based argument driven by a Democratic Party desire to manufacture a better legacy for someone who did drop Medicare for All promotion, and absolutely did vote for the bailout bill (we have the roll call vote to prove this). That vote means that Sanders could have made a name for himself by voting against that bill and then taken that 'no' vote to the people whom he still hopes to collect votes from and campaign contributions from -- remember that Sanders merely "suspended" his campaign. That bailout bill still would have easily passed the Senate without Sanders' yay vote). So my calling Sanders feckless seems completely fair, right, and proper to me, particularly considering that this is a time of obvious struggle for the poorest among us, and that this bill implements the largest wealth transfer. People haven't fully felt the effects of this bill yet. By the time they do they'll be asking "Wha happened?" and they'll need to look back on history and recognize not only what did happen, and who made it happen, but also they'll need to skip a lot of establishment-friendly media which was lying to them. Feckless was Sanders in not attacking the Dem ?lites and their candidate, but he remained quite steadfast in his advocacy of other domestic programs compared to all the others. His caving on full fleged Medicare-for-all was simply a recognition that he couldn?t push it through even as he still had faint hopes for his campaign. A mistake, I think, which he could have profited from with the onset of the coronavirus issue. Bad timing. Recent big events (including war!) are so poorly covered by DN of late, DN is just not worth my time and certainly not worth contributing money to. I only watch it now on rare occasion and purely as a bellweather for so-called "progressive" media as DN is still considered a well-known outlet in those circles. I don't trust the news I get from DN without other independent confirmations. Also, the interviews DN gets are often not that great (see above with AOC). I think that history will come to see Jeffrey St. Clair's book "Bernie & The Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution" (https://store.counterpunch.org/product/bernie-the-sandernistas/) about Sanders' 2016 campaign as prophetic -- Sanders deserved the criticism he received for his 2016 campaign from both St. Clair and Black Agenda Report (such as https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary). Sanders deserves the criticism he receives now. And the establishment-friendly media is desperate to create another narrative where Sanders looks a hell of a lot better than his political record can support (on April 7 he posted https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1247689671557201924 which reads "There is a word to describe our health care system today: grotesque. We need Medicare for All." and then on April 8 he "suspended" his campaign and dropped Medicare for All saying it wasn't politically tenable. If that doesn't urge sharp critique, what does? Sanders never had a foreign policy position that was clearly distinguishable from a neocon's, so he's got nothing to offer there). Perhaps Jimmy Dore is correct: Sanders did what he did to escape being viewed with hatred like the DNC views Ralph Nader. Sanders' choices are consistent with that motivation. David, it is clear that you have been sorely disappointed with Sanders and AOC and?? You hoped they would be more pure/principled in their words and actions, or did you? Yet, they did effect change in the debate, persisting in the campaign as long and robustly as they did, and deserve some praise for that. _______________________________________________ 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 paulmueth at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 02:10:02 2020 From: paulmueth at yahoo.com (Paul Mueth) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 02:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Sanders' campaign to draw people into the Democratic Party, and recent Democracy Now coverage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1599409919.30095.1587780602839@mail.yahoo.com> Well crafted. ?Morton , however one detail you have wrong,?that illustrates why I don?t engage in this discourse.? Chomsky was in the HRC ?safe? state of Massachusetts and consequently voted Green. As he?s retired to Arizona he may actually hold his nose and vote against Trump and the Republicans with a Biden ballot. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From a-fields at illinois.edu Sat Apr 25 02:59:15 2020 From: a-fields at illinois.edu (Fields, A Belden) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 02:59:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: <887da07b-c1b9-ca9d-5a59-791678a93277@forestfield.org> References: <887da07b-c1b9-ca9d-5a59-791678a93277@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <1F3EE4E4-EFF7-4910-9DEC-27D483E37FF9@illinois.edu> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 24, 2020, at 6:18 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > David, I guess Chomsky doesn?t have a clue and could care less too, in your usual charitable way of thinking. Belden > ?I wrote: >> Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". >> https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ > You can see these interview segments on YouTube starting today: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3UeVTxZHC8 -- How to start a successful strike during crisis > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH9beRXMxwk -- Many strikes are coming > > You can bet these will be on my list of recommended videos to play during News from Neptune's timeslot. > > How correct is McAlevey likely to be? I think the answer comes in the form of recent media stories such as this article from the LA Times: > > From https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-17/usc-coronavirus-survey > >> Less than half of L.A. County residents still have jobs amid coronavirus crisis >> By Jaclyn Cosgrove, Staff Writer April 17, 2020 >> 7 AM >> UPDATED 10:48 AM >> Because of the colossal impact that the coronavirus outbreak has had on the U.S. economy, less than half of Los Angeles County residents ? 45% compared with 61% >> in mid-March ? still hold a job, a decline of 16 percentage points, or an >> estimated 1.3 million jobs, according to findings from a national survey released >> Friday. >> The survey also suggests that 25.5 million jobs have been potentially lost across the U.S. since mid-March, and that people of color, especially black Americans, are more likely to have lost their jobs since mid-March. >> Nationally, 15% of white people said they had lost their jobs, while 18% of Latinos and 21% of black people reported job losses. 523444_ME_Covina_3_RCG.JPG >> California These striking photos reveal how California is changing >> But a significant majority of job losses, 67% nationally, were reported as temporary layoffs. Angelenos reported similar experiences. >> ?Under normal circumstances losing a job without access to benefits would be bad enough, but in the current situation, chances of finding a new job are likely to be close to nonexistent,? Arie Kapteyn, director of the USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, which administers the tracking survey, said in a statement. ?These changes are nothing less than catastrophic for those affected.? >> The Understanding Coronavirus in America Study, led by the USC Dornsife Center, has been surveying a panel of nearly 5,500 adults in the United States about >> their perceptions and attitudes regarding the coronavirus outbreak and how it?s affecting their lives since mid-March. > > And from what I'd bet will soon become one of the most looked-up Wikipedia pages -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression > >> Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 23% and in some countries rose as high as 33%. > relative to this recent RT interview: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9nLsrDeB4Y -- Trump adviser Stephen Moore says jobless rate will soon reach 20%. Don't expect much from this interview with Larry King (one of two shows RT runs which scarcely challenges the establishment or the viewer's intellect, the other show being the new Dennis Miller show). But the unemployment figure is staggering. > > And finally consider: > > https://www.wsj.com/articles/nearly-a-third-of-u-s-renters-didnt-pay-april-rent-11586340000 > >> Nearly a Third of U.S. Apartment Renters Didn?t Pay April [in the year 2020] Rent >> Nearly a third of U.S. apartment renters didn?t pay any of their April rent >> during the first week of the month, according to new data to be released Wednesday >> by the National Multifamily Housing Council and a consortium of real-estate data providers. >> The numbers are the first hard look at how many Americans are struggling to make rent during the coronavirus pandemic. The data come in the first of weekly >> reports on unpaid rent from NMHC, a landlord trade group. [...] > Reports on the same survey also come from other establishment-friendly outlets: > https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/09/business/americans-rent-payment-trnd/index.html > https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-fallout-onethird-of-americans-missed-rent-payments-in-april-135654889.html > https://www.cbsnews.com/news/april-rent-one-third-did-not-pay-multifamily-housing-council/ > > I point out these sources merely to drive home the point that some stories of immiseration are apparently unignorable, even for the establishment-friendly media (the same media that built on republishing WikiLeaks leaks and now tries to distance themselves from any news of how Julian Assange is being tortured and subjected to a petri dish where he may well catch Coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19). > > -J > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Apr 25 13:35:58 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:35:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal In-Reply-To: <1F3EE4E4-EFF7-4910-9DEC-27D483E37FF9@illinois.edu> References: <887da07b-c1b9-ca9d-5a59-791678a93277@forestfield.org> <1F3EE4E4-EFF7-4910-9DEC-27D483E37FF9@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <004401d61b06$7477a480$5d66ed80$@comcast.net> Perhaps ! David J. -----Original Message----- From: Fields, A Belden [mailto:a-fields at illinois.edu] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 9:59 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] Interesting and important interviews & comments from Jimmy Dore: interviews with Dylan Ratigan & Jane McAlevey, and analyzing Noam Chomsky's electoral advice & AOC's rebuttal Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 24, 2020, at 6:18 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > David, I guess Chomsky doesn?t have a clue and could care less too, in your usual charitable way of thinking. Belden > ?I wrote: >> Jimmy Dore is still giving us the interviews you're not likely to catch elsewhere. On today's live show he spoke with author Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy". >> https://janemcalevey.com/book/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy/ > You can see these interview segments on YouTube starting today: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3UeVTxZHC8 -- How to start a successful strike during crisis > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH9beRXMxwk -- Many strikes are coming > > You can bet these will be on my list of recommended videos to play during News from Neptune's timeslot. > > How correct is McAlevey likely to be? I think the answer comes in the form of recent media stories such as this article from the LA Times: > > From https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-17/usc-coronavirus-survey > >> Less than half of L.A. County residents still have jobs amid coronavirus crisis >> By Jaclyn Cosgrove, Staff Writer April 17, 2020 >> 7 AM >> UPDATED 10:48 AM >> Because of the colossal impact that the coronavirus outbreak has had on the U.S. economy, less than half of Los Angeles County residents ? 45% compared with 61% >> in mid-March ? still hold a job, a decline of 16 percentage points, or an >> estimated 1.3 million jobs, according to findings from a national survey released >> Friday. >> The survey also suggests that 25.5 million jobs have been potentially lost across the U.S. since mid-March, and that people of color, especially black Americans, are more likely to have lost their jobs since mid-March. >> Nationally, 15% of white people said they had lost their jobs, while 18% of Latinos and 21% of black people reported job losses. 523444_ME_Covina_3_RCG.JPG >> California These striking photos reveal how California is changing >> But a significant majority of job losses, 67% nationally, were reported as temporary layoffs. Angelenos reported similar experiences. >> ?Under normal circumstances losing a job without access to benefits would be bad enough, but in the current situation, chances of finding a new job are likely to be close to nonexistent,? Arie Kapteyn, director of the USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, which administers the tracking survey, said in a statement. ?These changes are nothing less than catastrophic for those affected.? >> The Understanding Coronavirus in America Study, led by the USC Dornsife Center, has been surveying a panel of nearly 5,500 adults in the United States about >> their perceptions and attitudes regarding the coronavirus outbreak and how it?s affecting their lives since mid-March. > > And from what I'd bet will soon become one of the most looked-up Wikipedia pages -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression > >> Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 23% and in some countries rose as high as 33%. > relative to this recent RT interview: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9nLsrDeB4Y -- Trump adviser Stephen Moore says jobless rate will soon reach 20%. Don't expect much from this interview with Larry King (one of two shows RT runs which scarcely challenges the establishment or the viewer's intellect, the other show being the new Dennis Miller show). But the unemployment figure is staggering. > > And finally consider: > > https://www.wsj.com/articles/nearly-a-third-of-u-s-renters-didnt-pay-april-rent-11586340000 > >> Nearly a Third of U.S. Apartment Renters Didn?t Pay April [in the year 2020] Rent >> Nearly a third of U.S. apartment renters didn?t pay any of their April rent >> during the first week of the month, according to new data to be released Wednesday >> by the National Multifamily Housing Council and a consortium of real-estate data providers. >> The numbers are the first hard look at how many Americans are struggling to make rent during the coronavirus pandemic. The data come in the first of weekly >> reports on unpaid rent from NMHC, a landlord trade group. [...] > Reports on the same survey also come from other establishment-friendly outlets: > https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/09/business/americans-rent-payment-trnd/index.html > https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-fallout-onethird-of-americans-missed-rent-payments-in-april-135654889.html > https://www.cbsnews.com/news/april-rent-one-third-did-not-pay-multifamily-housing-council/ > > I point out these sources merely to drive home the point that some stories of immiseration are apparently unignorable, even for the establishment-friendly media (the same media that built on republishing WikiLeaks leaks and now tries to distance themselves from any news of how Julian Assange is being tortured and subjected to a petri dish where he may well catch Coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19). > > -J > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Apr 25 20:46:31 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:46:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chris Hedges interview with Jimmy Dore is highly worthwhile In-Reply-To: <317e6737-7946-135c-669f-a2df3440e36f@forestfield.org> References: <317e6737-7946-135c-669f-a2df3440e36f@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <4f0de7d6-9113-db75-340e-cdb7ba096d8f@forestfield.org> I wrote: > Coming soon: > Jimmy Dore interviews Chris Hedges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sejW3NMzogo is > live now and the archived video URL should be available soon and promises to offer > some interesting analysis on recent political events including the US bailing out big > businesses, why the largest bloc of registered American voters don't vote for POTUS, > and whether anyone who voted for the bailout CARES bill (now law) will get voted out > of office for doing so without even trying to get a recorded vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpa7GR-EyF0 is this video now and it is highly recommended. I'm including this interview in my list of recommended videos for News from Neptune & AWARE on the Air timeslots also. This interview offers sharp criticism of the so-called progressive Democrats, TruthDig (where Hedges recently went on strike and lost his job), collaborator media, and more. It should be clear by now that the US desperately needs Medicare for All now despite Democratic party elected officials not calling out Nancy Pelosi (who is firmly against Medicare for All guaranteeing no such bill will reach the floor of the House), or giving into HMOs by saying capitulation talk like "Let me be clear: I am not proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight continues into the future." as Sen. Sanders did without identifying why, when "the future" is, or what that fight would be. Members of "The Squad" who made choices that did nothing -- not nothing effective, but nothing at all -- to stymie or delay adopting the CARES Act which is an enormous corporate bailout. But you won't find proper coverage of these things in many places nowadays. Note: https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ is your friend; this program is useful to download videos from all sorts of websites including YouTube. Downloading the video means you can play the video at any time on any system, even if YouTube's censorious policies kick in. You can use the program to keep up with updates. The program's complete source code is available under a free software license, so feel free to run, inspect, modify, and share the program. VLC (https://www.videolan.org/) is also a highly capable audio/video player that runs on every modern OS. Videos that challenge the establishment narrative (regardless of effectiveness) have a way of disappearing from sites like YouTube. Uploaders compound this problem by uploading to only one sharing website (often just YouTube or just Vimeo because those sites pay uploaders for popular videos), sometimes even for videos the uploader can't or doesn't intend to make money from. YouTube, like any private publisher, has the right and power to decide what it will publish and when. Apparently YouTube still finds it necessary to put a seemingly friendly face on their discrimination by claiming the site is keeping people away from harm -- YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki[1] said she wanted to stop "misinformation on the platform" by banning "[a]nything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations [which] would be a violation of our policy". These policies have historically been enforced capriciously, allowing establishment-friendly outlets to publish lies while silencing smaller independent publishers who also sometimes spread lies. CNN's YouTube account is up and running even after it published lies that helped foment the Venezuelan coup attempts (like those debunked by The Grayzone including one about Venezuelan grocery stores having no food available), or when CNN claimed that DPRK/North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's "health is in grave danger [...] following a recent surgery" citing an unnamed source (a "US official with direct knowledge"). NBC later piled on with a tweet they've since unpublished[2]. South Korea, China, and The Pentagon have now dismissed these rumors. But in August 2018 YouTube participated in a coordinated silencing of Infowars publisher Alex Jones' social media accounts with Facebook, Spotify, Apple, and others. This was also referenced in the aforementioned Jimmy Dore interview with Chris Hedges. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 [2] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCk0PVYphRU for more on this. From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Apr 25 22:08:48 2020 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:08:48 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chris Hedges interview with Jimmy Dore is highly worthwhile In-Reply-To: <4f0de7d6-9113-db75-340e-cdb7ba096d8f@forestfield.org> References: <317e6737-7946-135c-669f-a2df3440e36f@forestfield.org> <4f0de7d6-9113-db75-340e-cdb7ba096d8f@forestfield.org> Message-ID: I?m listening to it now on my tablet. It?s absolutely the best podcast/interview ever, most informative connecting the dots, and covering almost everything. If one is to only listen/watch one political discussion this year, this is it. > On Apr 25, 2020, at 13:46, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > > I wrote: >> Coming soon: >> Jimmy Dore interviews Chris Hedges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sejW3NMzogo is live now and the archived video URL should be available soon and promises to offer some interesting analysis on recent political events including the US bailing out big businesses, why the largest bloc of registered American voters don't vote for POTUS, and whether anyone who voted for the bailout CARES bill (now law) will get voted out of office for doing so without even trying to get a recorded vote. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpa7GR-EyF0 is this video now and it is highly recommended. I'm including this interview in my list of recommended videos for News from Neptune & AWARE on the Air timeslots also. > > This interview offers sharp criticism of the so-called progressive Democrats, TruthDig (where Hedges recently went on strike and lost his job), collaborator media, and more. It should be clear by now that the US desperately needs Medicare for All now despite Democratic party elected officials not calling out Nancy Pelosi (who is firmly against Medicare for All guaranteeing no such bill will reach the floor of the House), or giving into HMOs by saying capitulation talk like "Let me be clear: I am not proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight continues into the future." as Sen. Sanders did without identifying why, when "the future" is, or what that fight would be. Members of "The Squad" who made choices that did nothing -- not nothing effective, but nothing at all -- to stymie or delay adopting the CARES Act which is an enormous corporate bailout. But you won't find proper coverage of these things in many places nowadays. > > > > Note: https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ is your friend; this program is useful to download videos from all sorts of websites including YouTube. Downloading the video means you can play the video at any time on any system, even if YouTube's censorious policies kick in. You can use the program to keep up with updates. The program's complete source code is available under a free software license, so feel free to run, inspect, modify, and share the program. VLC (https://www.videolan.org/) is also a highly capable audio/video player that runs on every modern OS. > > > > Videos that challenge the establishment narrative (regardless of effectiveness) have a way of disappearing from sites like YouTube. Uploaders compound this problem by uploading to only one sharing website (often just YouTube or just Vimeo because those sites pay uploaders for popular videos), sometimes even for videos the uploader can't or doesn't intend to make money from. > > YouTube, like any private publisher, has the right and power to decide what it will publish and when. Apparently YouTube still finds it necessary to put a seemingly friendly face on their discrimination by claiming the site is keeping people away from harm -- YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki[1] said she wanted to stop "misinformation on the platform" by banning "[a]nything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations [which] would be a violation of our policy". These policies have historically been enforced capriciously, allowing establishment-friendly outlets to publish lies while silencing smaller independent publishers who also sometimes spread lies. CNN's YouTube account is up and running even after it published lies that helped foment the Venezuelan coup attempts (like those debunked by The Grayzone including one about Venezuelan grocery stores having no food available), or when CNN claimed that DPRK/North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's "health is in grave danger [...] following a recent surgery" citing an unnamed source (a "US official with direct knowledge"). NBC later piled on with a tweet they've since unpublished[2]. South Korea, China, and The Pentagon have now dismissed these rumors. But in August 2018 YouTube participated in a coordinated silencing of Infowars publisher Alex Jones' social media accounts with Facebook, Spotify, Apple, and others. This was also referenced in the aforementioned Jimmy Dore interview with Chris Hedges. > > > [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 > [2] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCk0PVYphRU for more on this. > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Apr 25 23:40:17 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 18:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chris Hedges interview with Jimmy Dore is highly worthwhile In-Reply-To: References: <317e6737-7946-135c-669f-a2df3440e36f@forestfield.org> <4f0de7d6-9113-db75-340e-cdb7ba096d8f@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <001e01d61b5a$e260a740$a721f5c0$@comcast.net> You are absolutely correct Karen ! I am currently watching it and I just put it on hold to check my e-mail and share it on FaceBook. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 5:09 PM To: J.B. Nicholson Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] Chris Hedges interview with Jimmy Dore is highly worthwhile I?m listening to it now on my tablet. It?s absolutely the best podcast/interview ever, most informative connecting the dots, and covering almost everything. If one is to only listen/watch one political discussion this year, this is it. > On Apr 25, 2020, at 13:46, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > > I wrote: >> Coming soon: >> Jimmy Dore interviews Chris Hedges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sejW3NMzogo is live now and the archived video URL should be available soon and promises to offer some interesting analysis on recent political events including the US bailing out big businesses, why the largest bloc of registered American voters don't vote for POTUS, and whether anyone who voted for the bailout CARES bill (now law) will get voted out of office for doing so without even trying to get a recorded vote. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpa7GR-EyF0 is this video now and it is highly recommended. I'm including this interview in my list of recommended videos for News from Neptune & AWARE on the Air timeslots also. > > This interview offers sharp criticism of the so-called progressive Democrats, TruthDig (where Hedges recently went on strike and lost his job), collaborator media, and more. It should be clear by now that the US desperately needs Medicare for All now despite Democratic party elected officials not calling out Nancy Pelosi (who is firmly against Medicare for All guaranteeing no such bill will reach the floor of the House), or giving into HMOs by saying capitulation talk like "Let me be clear: I am not proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight continues into the future." as Sen. Sanders did without identifying why, when "the future" is, or what that fight would be. Members of "The Squad" who made choices that did nothing -- not nothing effective, but nothing at all -- to stymie or delay adopting the CARES Act which is an enormous corporate bailout. But you won't find proper coverage of these things in many places nowadays. > > > > Note: https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ is your friend; this program is useful to download videos from all sorts of websites including YouTube. Downloading the video means you can play the video at any time on any system, even if YouTube's censorious policies kick in. You can use the program to keep up with updates. The program's complete source code is available under a free software license, so feel free to run, inspect, modify, and share the program. VLC (https://www.videolan.org/) is also a highly capable audio/video player that runs on every modern OS. > > > > Videos that challenge the establishment narrative (regardless of effectiveness) have a way of disappearing from sites like YouTube. Uploaders compound this problem by uploading to only one sharing website (often just YouTube or just Vimeo because those sites pay uploaders for popular videos), sometimes even for videos the uploader can't or doesn't intend to make money from. > > YouTube, like any private publisher, has the right and power to decide what it will publish and when. Apparently YouTube still finds it necessary to put a seemingly friendly face on their discrimination by claiming the site is keeping people away from harm -- YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki[1] said she wanted to stop "misinformation on the platform" by banning "[a]nything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations [which] would be a violation of our policy". These policies have historically been enforced capriciously, allowing establishment-friendly outlets to publish lies while silencing smaller independent publishers who also sometimes spread lies. CNN's YouTube account is up and running even after it published lies that helped foment the Venezuelan coup attempts (like those debunked by The Grayzone including one about Venezuelan grocery stores having no food available), or when CNN claimed that DPRK/North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's "health is in grave danger [...] following a recent surgery" citing an unnamed source (a "US official with direct knowledge"). NBC later piled on with a tweet they've since unpublished[2]. South Korea, China, and The Pentagon have now dismissed these rumors. But in August 2018 YouTube participated in a coordinated silencing of Infowars publisher Alex Jones' social media accounts with Facebook, Spotify, Apple, and others. This was also referenced in the aforementioned Jimmy Dore interview with Chris Hedges. > > > [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 > [2] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCk0PVYphRU for more on this. > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Apr 26 04:44:36 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:44:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] More recommended videos to run during AOTA & NFN timeslots In-Reply-To: <317e6737-7946-135c-669f-a2df3440e36f@forestfield.org> References: <317e6737-7946-135c-669f-a2df3440e36f@forestfield.org> Message-ID: Here are more videos I just recommended for AOTA & NfN timeslots. Jimmy Dore Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpa7GR-EyF0 -- Jimmy Dore interviews Chris Hedges on a variety of topics broadly covering neoliberalism and neoconservatism (1h 35m) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3UeVTxZHC8 -- Jimmy Dore interviews Jane McAlevey author of "A Collective Bargain: Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy" on how to start a successful strike during crisis (11m 59s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH9beRXMxwk -- Jimmy Dore interviews Jane McAlevey on the many strikes which are coming (31m 03s) Moderate Rebels Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal interviews economist Michael Hudson author of "...and Forgive Them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year" and multiple other books. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-8m5fBbLgQ -- Part 1 of 2: Hudson on the Coronavirus corporate bailout (44m 01s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paUgY6SGlgY -- Part 2 of 2: Hudson on how the US makes other countries pay for its wars (47m 24s) Michael Hudson gives important historical summaries and prescient descriptions of our foreseeable future after creating so much money to bailout the largest businesses and not the people, fomenting poverty, hunger, and destitution via the World Bank. Hudson said "The United States, through the World Bank, has become, I think, the most dangerous, right-wing, evil organization in modern history. More evil than the IMF [International Monetary Fund]; that's why it [the World Bank] has always been run by a Secretary of Defense. It has always been explicitly military. It's the hard fist of American imperialism.". The means by which this is carried out is important and interesting. -J From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Apr 27 00:40:32 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 00:40:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Sorting out Trumpism Message-ID: INSIDE THE MINDS OF HARDCORE TRUMP SUPPORTERS https://psmag.com/news/inside-the-minds-of-hardcore-trump-supporters?fbclid=IwAR00dxPWuxRCSUMYuyk-uS1ui3EPY9ehCX7M-T03lBhSPqpd5H_n1y3UL2c New research finds the president's earliest and strongest followers embody a particularly belligerent strain of authoritarian thinking. TOM JACOBS Pacific Standard [? Santa Barbara, CA] FEB 15, 2018 About 700 people gathered at the Minnesota capitol building in St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 4th, 2017, to show support for Donald Trump. Given the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, and the ill-defined phenomenon known as Trumpism, it's vital that we understand the psychology that attracted Americans to the real estate mogul in the first place. Research suggests such voters are driven by a combination of racial resentment and authoritarianism. Sociologist David Norman Smith cited both in a just-published paper, in which he argues hardcore Trump supporters "target minorities and women" and "favor domineering and intolerant leaders who are uninhibited about their biases." And yet, there's something puzzling about that equation. If authoritarians, by definition, revere authority, why would they support an anti-establishment candidate like Trump? And why are they OK with his administration slandering bedrock American institutions as the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A second recently published study provides an answer: There are different strains of authoritarian thinking. And support for Trump is associated with what is arguably the most toxic type: authoritarian aggression. The study suggests the bulk of his supporters, at least in the Republican primaries, were not old-fashioned conservatives who preach obedience and respect for authority. Rather, they were people who take a belligerent, combative approach toward people they find threatening. The notion that there are different types of authoritarians was proposed in the 1980s by University of Manitoba psychologist Robert Altemeyer, and refined in 2010 by a research team led by John Duckitt of the University of Auckland. In the journal Political Psychology, that team defined right-wing authoritarianism as "a set of three related ideological attitude dimensions." They are: "Conventionalism," a.k.a. "traditionalism," which is defined as "favoring traditional, old-fashioned social norms, values, and morality." Authoritarian submission," defined as "favoring uncritical, respectful, obedient, submissive support for existing authorities and institutions." "Authoritarian aggression," defined as "favoring the use of strict, tough, harsh, punitive, coercive social control." Duckitt and his colleagues created a survey designed to measure each of these three facets. It was measured by participants' responses to statements such as "The old-fashioned ways, and old-fashioned values, still show the best way to live" (traditionalism); "Our country would be great if we show respect for authority and obey our leaders" (submission); and "The way things are going in this country, it's going to take a lot of 'strong medicine' to straighten out the troublemakers, criminals, and perverts" (aggression). A research team led by psychologist Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark used those scales to try to tease out why some studies link Trump support to authoritarianism, while others do not. It discovered the problem with the latter is they tend to either heavily or exclusively focus on the "submission" dimension, which has traditionally been studied in the context of child-rearing (as in, "Do you expect your children to unquestioningly obey their elders?"). As it turns out, that's the facet of authoritarianism that has the least to do with support for Trump. Ludeke's study, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, featured 1,444 participants recruited online in April of 2016. They responded to 18 authoritarianism-focused statements?six for each facet?and indicated who, among the presidential candidates remaining in the race at that point, they supported. "Consistent with Trump's representation of the world as a dangerous place requiring harsh treatment of deviant minorities," they write, "Trump supporters were high on authoritarian aggression." Strong support for conventionalism/traditionalism was also linked to support for Trump, but high scores on the submission category?that is, respect for authority, and obedience to superiors?was not. THE EMOTIONAL ROOTS OF POLITICAL POLARIZATION: New research argues feelings of disillusionment prompt people to take more extreme positions. Smith's analysis of data from the American National Election Study reaches a similar conclusion. He reports "enthusiastic Trump voters are also enthusiastic about domineering leaders, and that they are not especially enthusiastic about respectful children." Authoritarianism in the Trump era "is not the wish to follow any and every authority but, rather, the wish to support a strong and determined authority who will 'crush evil and take us back to our true path,'" Smith and his co-author, Eric Hanley, conclude. Participants in Ludeke's study also completed surveys measuring Social Dominance Orientation?the belief that one group has the right to dominate others. Replicating previous research, they found this philosophy, which often accompanies authoritarianism, correlated with support for Trump. So the very things a majority of Americans find disconcerting, if not disqualifying, about Trump?his need to dominate, his thinly veiled white supremacism, and his blunt, bullying language?is precisely what appeals to his hardcore fans. They are very likely stand to by their man, whatever scandals might emerge. That said, these results suggest Democrats have a decent chance of peeling away a different slice of the Republican-leaning electorate?if they can defend liberal policies while embodying a more traditional respect for authority. Those "submission"-oriented voters don't have a natural affinity for Trump. They may prefer candidates who embody a traditional sense of dignity?people they can feel comfortable looking up to. That possibility aside, the picture painted in both of these studies is pretty bleak from a progressive perspective. Smith's paper, the lead article in the March 2018 issue of Critical Sociology, concludes this way: Most Trump voters cast their ballots for him with their eyes open, not despite his prejudices but because of them. Their partisanship, whether positive (toward Trump and the Republicans) or negative (against Clinton and the Democrats), is intense. This partisanship is anchored in anger and resentment among mild as well as strong Trump voters. Anger, not fear, was the emotional key to the Tea Party, and that seems to be true for Trumpism as well. If so, the challenge for progressives is greater than many people have imagined. Hostility to minorities and women cannot be wished away; nor can the wish for domineering leaders. > Tom Jacobs is a senior staff writer at Pacific Standard, where he specializes in social science, culture, and learning. He is a veteran journalist and former staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 16:00:17 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?By_November=2C_Let=E2=80=99s_Make_Bide?= =?utf-8?q?n_the_Harold_Macmillan_of_Imperial_Commitment_Shedding?= In-Reply-To: <0b3dca57-63be-4b6e-1d86-64e2d285dae5@forestfield.org> References: <0b3dca57-63be-4b6e-1d86-64e2d285dae5@forestfield.org> Message-ID: "I don't think you had to say that explicitly, it's implied in getting Joe Biden to have the power he'd need to carry out your plan. This means you're shifting from an explicit call to vote for Biden (which you can't afford particularly posting to a peace group) to an implicit call to vote for him." What a hoot. Do you think I'm afraid to say what my views are, in this venue or any other? You must have me confused with somebody else. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:15 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Note what I haven?t said here, anywhere. I have not encouraged anyone to > > vote for Joe Biden. I have not encouraged anyone to vote against Joe > Biden. > > I have been Switzerland on that question here. > > I don't think you had to say that explicitly, it's implied in getting Joe > Biden to > have the power he'd need to carry out your plan. This means you're > shifting from an > explicit call to vote for Biden (which you can't afford particularly > posting to a > peace group) to an implicit call to vote for him. > > You're asking people to trade away the only thing they have -- their vote > -- in > exchange for doing things he's already pledged not to do like support > Medicare for > All (which Biden has already pledged to veto if it came to him as POTUS > per > > https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/biden-says-he-wouldd-veto-medicare-for-all-as-coronavirus-focuses-attention-on-health.html) > > which is also something the Democratic Party also apparently will fight to > disallow. > > House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not brought any Medicare for All bill to > the floor of > the House. Other Democrats therefore get to carry on with their > hypocrisies like AOC > talking to the public and to shamefully uncritical journalists like Amy > Goodman about > how much we need individual payments from the government after she likely > voted for > the CARES Act (which was a big business bailout bill). Or Democrats taking > HMO money > and chatting up Medicare for All while depending on Pelosi to never call > them to > account for that. > > There's no real reason to think that we need Biden in office to effect the > majoritarian changes we need to see. What we need isn't partisan calls to > action > benefiting one of the two 1% parties over the other. What we need is a > practical > strategy organizing around a specific set of actionable goals including > (but not > limited to) enacting Medicare for All. I don't have such a plan to hand, > but I think > the increased immiseration brought on by both 1% parties will help focus > people's > time and put aside such ridiculous distraction as wondering who is better, > Trump or > Biden. > > The Democrats don't care if Biden wins. It's likely that either Trump or > Biden will > be the next POTUS and either way the elites get what they want -- a > reliable neocon & > neolib in Biden (now with obviously decreased mental capacity) or Trump > who has been > (to borrow a phrase) brought to heel by years of Russiagate. An organized > public will > need to challenge whomever occupies the White House. > > > Even if we go hide in a cave for the next seven months, the odds are > good that Joe > > Biden will be the next President of the United States. > This is an evidenceless claim. Polling on the election is almost > meaningless right > now but if one insists on reading something into such polling which > currently puts > Biden a few points ahead of Trump, it's worth noting that Hillary Clinton > had higher > poll ratings at this point than Biden does. What stands out to most voters > is what > happened in 2016 where most establishment-friendly news outlets gave > Hillary Clinton > odds on being the winner and yet Donald Trump was duly elected instead > (for reasons > the establishment-friendly media won't dare get into hence we get endless > Russiagate > lies). We've yet to see a proper reckoning and apology for such obviously > shoddy > reporting from so many outlets, or giving credit where credit is due to > those few who > accurately predicted that Trump would win (one exception is local News > from Neptune > guest Ed Mandel who accurately predicted Trump's win and has rightly > received credit > for his correct assessment on-air). > > > In the opening innings of the fight he led towards universal health > insurance, > > Barack Obama said: the health insurance companies have to be at the > table. > In other words, Obama did not fight for making our current single-payer > Medicare > system universal (covering all Americans). He fought for the HMOs and won > with a > healthcare plan written by the HMOs which was largely what RomneyCare > offered > (suggesting that as far as health care goes it wouldn't have mattered if > Romney had > won). Even when HR676 (the late John Conyers' Medicare for All bill) was > ready to be > brought to the floor of the House for a vote and when the Democrats had a > majority in > the House & Senate we didn't get Medicare for All. The situation we see > with Medicare > for All bills is indistinguishable from the HMOs recognizing that having > such bills > written and ready to bring to the floor is a prerequisite distraction for > continuing > to let HMOs dictate US healthcare delivery. > _______________________________________________ > 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.uiuc at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 16:56:10 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:56:10 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?NYT=3A_AOC_Has_Never_Spoken_to_Joe_Bid?= =?utf-8?q?en=2E_Here=E2=80=99s_What_She_Would_Say=2E?= Message-ID: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/us/politics/aoc-progressives-joe-biden.html Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Has Never Spoken to Joe Biden. Here?s What She Would Say. In an interview, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said she intended to support the presumptive Democratic nominee, but the ?process of coming together should be uncomfortable for everyone involved.? By Astead W. Herndon Published April 13, 2020 Updated April 17, 2020 The progressive wing of the Democratic Party fell flat in this year?s presidential primary, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows it. Even before Senator Bernie Sanders dropped out of the race last week, making former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. the party?s presumptive nominee, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was ruminating on the lessons the left must learn to be more successful moving forward. But in the short term, Democrats are desperate to defeat President Trump in November, and Mr. Biden is making some policy overtures to unite the party. The hope is to win over supporters of Mr. Sanders as well as top surrogates like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, a New York congresswoman who is popular among young progressives ? a group Mr. Biden is struggling to win. In a recent phone interview, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez made clear that she intended to support the Democratic nominee, but said his current overtures to progressives must go further. She made a distinction between supporting Mr. Biden in November and offering a full-throated endorsement of his campaign. Where she lands, she said, is up to him. These are edited excerpts from the conversation. *Q. I guess my first question is simple: Has the Biden campaign reached out to you?* A. No. *OK. Well, what type of outreach are you looking for? Not just to you but to progressives broadly.* There?s this talk about unity as this kind of vague, kumbaya, kind of term. Unity and unifying isn?t a feeling, it?s a process. And what I hope does not happen in this process is that everyone just tries to shoo it along and brush real policies ? that mean the difference of life and death or affording your insulin and not affording your insulin ? just brush that under the rug as an aesthetic difference of style. There?s also this idea that if we all just support the nominee that voters will come along as well. I?ve flagged, very early, two patterns that I saw [among Biden?s campaign], which is underperformance among Latinos and young people, both of which are very important demographics in November. And so, I don?t think this conversation about changes that need to be made is one about throwing the progressive wing of the party a couple of bones ? I think this is about how we can win. The whole process of coming together should be uncomfortable for everyone involved ? that?s how you know it?s working. And if Biden is only doing things he?s comfortable with, then it?s not enough. *Can you give me examples of areas that you want to see him get ?uncomfortable??* They floated this olive branch to the progressive left of lowering the Medicare age to 60. And it?s almost insulting. I think Hillary was looking at policies that lowered it to 50. So we?re talking about a ?progressive concession? that is 10 years worse than what the nominee had in 2016. Progressives aren?t a monolith like every voting block isn?t a monolith. But I also know, from a Latino perspective, I think we need a real plan to be better than what happened during his service with the Obama administration. *In terms of deportations?* In terms of deportations, in terms of apprehensions, I mean, even in terms of rhetoric. It was just a couple months ago that he told immigrant activists to vote for someone else. I want to see him get uncomfortable there. Putting ?Dreamers? on a path to citizenship is great, but that?s a policy concession from 10 years ago. People need to feel hope in a Democratic administration. And that?s what this is about. If we?re not talking about paths to citizenship for undocumented people, and if we?re just talking about policy changes of 5 or 10 percent ? especially when you look at something like climate change ? it?s not about moving to the left. It?s about who is able to find hope in your administration. And creating plans that give people hope and possibility. *But Biden has gotten to this point by rejecting some of these things. What?s your realistic level of confidence he will get uncomfortable on these issues? He?s been in this game a long time.* I think the ideological argument is a false one, and I think that?s backed up by exit polling. While Biden is the nominee, we also know that he didn?t win because of policy ? I don?t think he won because of his agenda, he won because of different factors. In state after state after state, Democratic voters support a progressive agenda. I want to respect his win, he won because of his coalition building, he won because of his service, he won for a lot of different reasons ? but I don?t think he won because Americans don?t want ?Medicare for all.? And in this moment, I wouldn?t be surprised if what we?re seeing with coronavirus didn?t further change people?s views in further support of a progressive agenda. *How should the relationship that progressives had in 2016 with Hillary Clinton inform the way you all go about it in 2020 with Biden? What are the lessons from how that turned out that are worth changing, or replicating, this time around?* As much as a dumpster fire as Twitter can be sometimes, I actually think the process was much less painful and nasty and fraught than it was in 2016. In 2016, things like superdelegates delegitimized the process so much that it felt a lot more scorched-earth, and I?m not even talking about between the two candidates, but just how voters felt about the party. I think people understand that there are limits to what Biden will do and that?s understandable ? he didn?t run as a progressive candidate. But, at the bare minimum, we should aspire to be better than what we have been before. And I just don?t know if this message of ?We?re going to go back to the way things were? is going to work for the people for who the way things were was really bad. *Is an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsement of Joe Biden a sure thing?* I?ve always said that I will support the Democratic nominee. But unity is a process, and figuring out what that looks like is part of this whole conversation that I think Bernie and Warren and other folks are a part of as well. *Yes. But I guess I?m asking about you. Is there something you?re looking for? Is there a difference between voting for him or campaigning for him? What are the range of possibilities of your relationship with the Democratic nominee in the next months?* Beating Donald Trump is a matter of life or death for our communities. I think it?s a difference between making an argument for harm reduction, and making the argument for, there?s actually going to be progress made for us. What I want to do is to be able to go out and say, ?This is the plan for us.? But it?s hard to do that if there?s no plan for us. *And who?s us?* Any number of communities, whether it?s the Bronx, whether it?s Latinos, or whether it?s people of color, whether it?s women, whether it?s young people, whether it?s people with student debt, whether it?s working-class people, or people with no health care. And you know, I?m not trying to be divisive. But when you talk about lessons from 2016, one of the most divisive things that we can do is just smother and silence legitimate points of critique ? especially from people whose lives are most at risk in this administration. Because, for some people, this argument of returning to normalcy sounds like an argument of respectability politics and civility. And for other people, it sounds like, will my child be put in a cage? Aesthetics plays a big role in politics, a huge one. But I just want to improve people?s lives. And while we?ll improve people?s lives with Donald Trump not in the White House, we need to do better than what we?ve done before. I?m a progressive [laughter]. That?s literally what it means. *What if Biden doesn?t do it? What if he doesn?t get uncomfortable? And you know, only gives kind of aesthetic, in-name-only concessions to the left? What do you do?* I will be supporting the Democratic nominee in November. I would just hope that the nominee supports our communities too. *Is a Biden-A.O.C. unity rally ever in the cards?* It could be. I have not talked to the vice president. *Ever?* Never. Not that I know of, no. But I know the goal ultimately is to win. And I?m not trying to needle as a way of making a point or to score points. I want to win. And I want to make sure that we win broadly. *Do you worry about causing damage to the vice president in a way that helps Donald Trump? How do you square unity with applying pressure from the left?* It?s a tightrope. I do not feel a choice in adhering to my principles and my integrity, and being accountable to the movement that brought me here. But also, I don?t want another term of Trump. I?m not going to lie to people and say Puerto Rico?s debt is going to be forgiven or there?s going to be some audit of the debt if that?s not the plan. But at the same time, I don?t want this president throwing paper towels at my family again. I just want to tell the truth and I want to feel good about the truth. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Apr 28 01:14:32 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:14:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?NYT=3A_AOC_Has_Never_Spoken_to_Joe_Bid?= =?utf-8?q?en=2E_Here=E2=80=99s_What_She_Would_Say=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert Naiman quoted the New York Times recent interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC): > https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/us/politics/aoc-progressives-joe-biden.html > > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Has Never Spoken to Joe Biden. Here?s What She > Would Say. > In an interview, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said she intended to support the > presumptive Democratic nominee, but the ?process of coming together should > be uncomfortable for everyone involved.? Jimmy Dore had a show that responds to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZM_AxFH7bQ -- footage of AOC talking about sexual assault at a rally which (I understand from the description Dore provided) featured Anita Hill. Presumably this video was made well prior to AOC's statement of support for Biden. Here's the transcript of what AOC said from a clip played on the video above: > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Sexual assault is not a crime of passion. It is about > the abuse of power. And that is precisely why it is one of the most serious, > serious allegations anyone who cares to be a public servant can be accused of. > Sexual assault is about the abuse of power. It is always women who are > marginalized, it is the young, it is the interns, it is the immigrant, it is the > trans. They are always most at risk, because society listens to them the least. > And that is why a man believes that an elite education, a high income and his rich > friends can get away with sexual assaults. That is why I want to thank every > survivor that is here today that is allowing themselves and everyone in this > country to be re-traumatized over and over, because people and people like Dr. > Anita Hill, I mean people like Anita Hill and Dr. Ford have to sit there in front > of panels of eleven men. Could you imagine if Brett Kavanaugh had to sit in front > of a panel of eleven women of color, deciding his fate? Could you imagine? Could > you imagine? Jimmy Dore was interviewing Aaron Mat? when he played the video containing the above speech. Dore and Mat? chatted about this video afterwards. > Jimmy Dore: So I don't know if you saw the pickle she just got herself into, > Aaron, and I'll just recap -- she's sitting there screaming about sexual assault > and she's thanking survivors for allowing themselves to be retraumatized to come > out and tell their story and then she points to Anita Hill who was obviously > traumatized by Joe Biden and now she's supporting Joe Biden now. Aren't you > retraumatizing women, AOC, by supporting a guy who did that to Anita Hill and now > has a credible allegation against him? Who are you supporting? You're not > supporting the victims! You're not supporting the wom-- you see the pickle she's > in, right Aaron? > > Aaron Mat?: She is in a pickle. Has she endorsed Biden yet? I thought she gave > this interview to the New York Times saying that Biden needs to appeal to the > progressive movement but I could be wrong. > > Jimmy Dore: Here's what I tweeted, I tweeted out here: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez > said she intended to support the presumptive Democratic nominee, but the ?process > of coming together should be uncomfortable for everyone involved. That's how you > know that it's working.? [Mat? responds affirmatively] What I tweeted out was > "According to @AOC: Having to support & vote for a war-mongering, WallSt puppet > who's also a pathological liar & obviously demented, is how you know the "process > is working"! #CantMakeThisUp #PartyHacks".[1] [Dore and Mat? laugh] So she's in a > pickle: she has to know she's supporting-- she said she's gonna support him and > but she might not do a rally for him. That's what she said. [1] https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1249719461487079424 There's more to this discussion: - how Mat? was initially "excited" about AOC's candidacy but: > Aaron Mat?: [O]n all the issues I personally care about [Mat? found her] > disappointing on some of them. For example, when she praised John McCain for his > "unparalleled example of human decency" when he died and when the Trump > administration launched a coup in Venezuela and she said 'I'm gonna defer to the > Democratic Party leadership on this' the same leadership that is headed by Nancy > Pelosi who was getting up at Trump's State of the Union and giving a standing > ovation to the puppet whom Trump is trying to install in Venezuela. So that's been > disappointing. But on other things I think AOC deserves a lot of credit and on > this one, yes, she's in a pickle and I'm just happy I'm not a member of Congress > and a member of the Democratic Party who has to rally behind Joe Biden with his > horrible record and his allegations of sexual assault. [...] - Dore & Mat? don't point out what a reputation-ruining hypocrisy this is for AOC (particularly because she built a name for herself on stances like this around issues like this). Instead they talk about AOC in euphemisms like saying she's "in quite a pickle" or that "AOC [is] twisting herself in a political pretzel". Mat? concludes that this "is a pickle for all of us" but that's just plain wrong. It's not a pickle for those of us who remain consistently and firmly against the behavior (ranging from ill-advised and inappropriate to allegations of rape) Biden has carried out against some girls & women (some of which we have on video). It's not difficult or wrong to point out that this is one of many reasons why Biden does not deserve our "support" or our vote. - Dore points out some followup posts on Twitter that are quite apropos and keep the discussion focused on issues that matter including war, sexual abuse, the narrow scope of allowable debate for the Democrats, and that AOC is (quoting Dore) "just another politician". Indeed, she's shown that she's nothing special and no more worthy of her constituents vote than someone else who might vote properly when big bills come along (Massey, for example, was one of the 'no' votes against the CARES bill and he rejected a consent vote thus moving that vote to a voice vote). After all, her constituents might reason, what is the point of AOC if she can't be counted on to vote the way her district's residents need her to, particularly in their time of need as so many presumably lose their jobs during the stay-at-home order. - Dore insists (and I think rightly) that AOC voted for CARES and has been waging a PR effort to try to convince people otherwise (like Krystal Ball who I believe is probably in-the-tank for AOC -- see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjXMdFCMDuk for its title on YouTube which insists on an entertainingly self-contradictory stance of "AOC DID vote no on the bailout bill" while Ball simultaneously maintains there is no proof of how AOC voted). Jimmy Dore, by contrast, made an offer to AOC to come on his show and correct the record. But she has yet to show up. We know from Dore's other guests that he accepts guests via VOIP & traditional phone, so there's no technical reason why she can't contact Jimmy Dore's show and get a short segment wherein she declares that she did not vote for the CARES bill. I'd be willing to bet he'd interrupt whatever he was doing and ask her for her vote on this bill and not accept an unclear PR-driven response. That's just how important and career and economy-defining this bill is. Relatedly: We recently learned that the Biden campaign has rejected putting Nina Turner (from the Bernie Sanders campaign) on a "task force" to ostensibly identify what Americans need now (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C49HL0K2qIY). Not only is that task force a complete waste of time (we already know what we need), this also shows how important political leverage is -- it stands out that Sanders as so little leverage right now he can't put Turner on such a time-wasting task force even for PR purposes (and for all we know, Sanders might be just enough of a sheepdog to not even care to try). Therefore Biden can afford to stand by his already-stated promise to veto Medicare for All bills that reach his desk as President, support anti-Iranian sanctions, and stand behind other horrible neolib/neocon policy (continuing the Iraq occupation, backing more Venezuelan coup attempts & sanctions, etc.). Sanctions are war as https://sanctionskill.org/ points out. So war with Iran & war with Venezuela have been underway for some time now. The New York Times wrote: > [AOC said] I just want to tell the truth and I want to feel good about the truth. Note the difference between AOC's claim there and Jimmy Dore in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZM_AxFH7bQ > Fuck all them. Fuck all them and their career climbing. Go fucking do something > worth living for. Go fucking tell the truth about something without fucking your > paycheck hinging on it. Just go fuckin' do it. I had to do it my entire goddamn > life and I'm still fucking doing it and I do it better than you guys do. And > that's a fact. I quote this including the strong language precisely because we're talking about such an important matter here -- life & death, people losing their jobs and their health care at the time they need health care. And all while trillions of dollars are added to the economy with virtually nothing going to most ordinary taxpayers ($1200 ? $500/child won't go far to pay for healthcare bills, rent, food, electricity, etc.). The Democrats spent their leverage supporting the big businesses not the people. AOC's rhetoric on CARES might be entirely right-headed but that rhetoric is not policy. Her vote helps make policy. And what we heard in that voice vote, and what we hear from her tells us that she's not telling the unvarnished truth about how she voted on that bill. The truth will encourage AOC's constituents to vote her out but the establishment media won't have any of that. Instead of asking tough questions, demanding clear unmistakable answers, and judging elected officials by votes on bills, the establishment media wants us to judge AOC's choices by her pre/post-vote rhetoric which is not policy. From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 04:30:43 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 23:30:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?NYT=3A_AOC_Has_Never_Spoken_to_Joe_Bid?= =?utf-8?q?en=2E_Here=E2=80=99s_What_She_Would_Say=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Both AOC & Krystal Ball are market actors and shapeshifters, have been for their entire adult lives. That is, they are progressive neoliberals. They are manipulative and untrustworthy. AOC's trauma-based appeals are particularly repellant, even when they are not blatantly hypocritical as in this case. On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 8:15 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Robert Naiman quoted the New York Times recent interview with Alexandria > Ocasio-Cortez (AOC): > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/us/politics/aoc-progressives-joe-biden.html > > > > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Has Never Spoken to Joe Biden. Here?s What She > > Would Say. > > In an interview, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said she intended to support the > > presumptive Democratic nominee, but the ?process of coming together > should > > be uncomfortable for everyone involved.? > > Jimmy Dore had a show that responds to this: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZM_AxFH7bQ -- footage of AOC talking > about sexual > assault at a rally which (I understand from the description Dore provided) > featured > Anita Hill. Presumably this video was made well prior to AOC's statement > of support > for Biden. > > > > > Here's the transcript of what AOC said from a clip played on the video > above: > > > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Sexual assault is not a crime of passion. It > is about > > the abuse of power. And that is precisely why it is one of the most > serious, > > serious allegations anyone who cares to be a public servant can be > accused of. > > Sexual assault is about the abuse of power. It is always women who are > > marginalized, it is the young, it is the interns, it is the immigrant, > it is the > > trans. They are always most at risk, because society listens to them the > least. > > And that is why a man believes that an elite education, a high income > and his rich > > friends can get away with sexual assaults. That is why I want to thank > every > > survivor that is here today that is allowing themselves and everyone in > this > > country to be re-traumatized over and over, because people and people > like Dr. > > Anita Hill, I mean people like Anita Hill and Dr. Ford have to sit there > in front > > of panels of eleven men. Could you imagine if Brett Kavanaugh had to sit > in front > > of a panel of eleven women of color, deciding his fate? Could you > imagine? Could > > you imagine? > Jimmy Dore was interviewing Aaron Mat? when he played the video containing > the above > speech. Dore and Mat? chatted about this video afterwards. > > > Jimmy Dore: So I don't know if you saw the pickle she just got herself > into, > > Aaron, and I'll just recap -- she's sitting there screaming about sexual > assault > > and she's thanking survivors for allowing themselves to be retraumatized > to come > > out and tell their story and then she points to Anita Hill who was > obviously > > traumatized by Joe Biden and now she's supporting Joe Biden now. Aren't > you > > retraumatizing women, AOC, by supporting a guy who did that to Anita > Hill and now > > has a credible allegation against him? Who are you supporting? You're not > > supporting the victims! You're not supporting the wom-- you see the > pickle she's > > in, right Aaron? > > > > Aaron Mat?: She is in a pickle. Has she endorsed Biden yet? I thought > she gave > > this interview to the New York Times saying that Biden needs to appeal > to the > > progressive movement but I could be wrong. > > > > Jimmy Dore: Here's what I tweeted, I tweeted out here: "Alexandria > Ocasio-Cortez > > said she intended to support the presumptive Democratic nominee, but the > ?process > > of coming together should be uncomfortable for everyone involved. That's > how you > > know that it's working.? [Mat? responds affirmatively] What I tweeted > out was > > "According to @AOC: Having to support & vote for a war-mongering, WallSt > puppet > > who's also a pathological liar & obviously demented, is how you know the > "process > > is working"! #CantMakeThisUp #PartyHacks".[1] [Dore and Mat? laugh] So > she's in a > > pickle: she has to know she's supporting-- she said she's gonna support > him and > > but she might not do a rally for him. That's what she said. > [1] https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1249719461487079424 > > > > There's more to this discussion: > > - how Mat? was initially "excited" about AOC's candidacy but: > > > Aaron Mat?: [O]n all the issues I personally care about [Mat? found her] > > disappointing on some of them. For example, when she praised John McCain > for his > > "unparalleled example of human decency" when he died and when the Trump > > administration launched a coup in Venezuela and she said 'I'm gonna > defer to the > > Democratic Party leadership on this' the same leadership that is headed > by Nancy > > Pelosi who was getting up at Trump's State of the Union and giving a > standing > > ovation to the puppet whom Trump is trying to install in Venezuela. So > that's been > > disappointing. But on other things I think AOC deserves a lot of credit > and on > > this one, yes, she's in a pickle and I'm just happy I'm not a member of > Congress > > and a member of the Democratic Party who has to rally behind Joe Biden > with his > > horrible record and his allegations of sexual assault. [...] > - Dore & Mat? don't point out what a reputation-ruining hypocrisy this is > for AOC > (particularly because she built a name for herself on stances like this > around issues > like this). Instead they talk about AOC in euphemisms like saying she's > "in quite a > pickle" or that "AOC [is] twisting herself in a political pretzel". Mat? > concludes > that this "is a pickle for all of us" but that's just plain wrong. It's > not a pickle > for those of us who remain consistently and firmly against the behavior > (ranging from > ill-advised and inappropriate to allegations of rape) Biden has carried > out against > some girls & women (some of which we have on video). It's not difficult or > wrong to > point out that this is one of many reasons why Biden does not deserve our > "support" > or our vote. > > - Dore points out some followup posts on Twitter that are quite apropos > and keep the > discussion focused on issues that matter including war, sexual abuse, the > narrow > scope of allowable debate for the Democrats, and that AOC is (quoting > Dore) "just > another politician". Indeed, she's shown that she's nothing special and no > more > worthy of her constituents vote than someone else who might vote properly > when big > bills come along (Massey, for example, was one of the 'no' votes against > the CARES > bill and he rejected a consent vote thus moving that vote to a voice > vote). After > all, her constituents might reason, what is the point of AOC if she can't > be counted > on to vote the way her district's residents need her to, particularly in > their time > of need as so many presumably lose their jobs during the stay-at-home > order. > > - Dore insists (and I think rightly) that AOC voted for CARES and has been > waging a > PR effort to try to convince people otherwise (like Krystal Ball who I > believe is > probably in-the-tank for AOC -- see > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjXMdFCMDuk for > its title on YouTube which insists on an entertainingly self-contradictory > stance of > "AOC DID vote no on the bailout bill" while Ball simultaneously maintains > there is no > proof of how AOC voted). Jimmy Dore, by contrast, made an offer to AOC to > come on his > show and correct the record. But she has yet to show up. We know from > Dore's other > guests that he accepts guests via VOIP & traditional phone, so there's no > technical > reason why she can't contact Jimmy Dore's show and get a short segment > wherein she > declares that she did not vote for the CARES bill. I'd be willing to bet > he'd > interrupt whatever he was doing and ask her for her vote on this bill and > not accept > an unclear PR-driven response. That's just how important and career and > economy-defining this bill is. > > > > Relatedly: We recently learned that the Biden campaign has rejected > putting Nina > Turner (from the Bernie Sanders campaign) on a "task force" to ostensibly > identify > what Americans need now (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C49HL0K2qIY). > Not only is > that task force a complete waste of time (we already know what we need), > this also > shows how important political leverage is -- it stands out that Sanders as > so little > leverage right now he can't put Turner on such a time-wasting task force > even for PR > purposes (and for all we know, Sanders might be just enough of a sheepdog > to not even > care to try). Therefore Biden can afford to stand by his already-stated > promise to > veto Medicare for All bills that reach his desk as President, support > anti-Iranian > sanctions, and stand behind other horrible neolib/neocon policy > (continuing the Iraq > occupation, backing more Venezuelan coup attempts & sanctions, etc.). > Sanctions are > war as https://sanctionskill.org/ points out. So war with Iran & war with > Venezuela > have been underway for some time now. > > The New York Times wrote: > > [AOC said] I just want to tell the truth and I want to feel good about > the truth. > > Note the difference between AOC's claim there and Jimmy Dore in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZM_AxFH7bQ > > Fuck all them. Fuck all them and their career climbing. Go fucking do > something > > worth living for. Go fucking tell the truth about something without > fucking your > > paycheck hinging on it. Just go fuckin' do it. I had to do it my entire > goddamn > > life and I'm still fucking doing it and I do it better than you guys do. > And > > that's a fact. > I quote this including the strong language precisely because we're talking > about such > an important matter here -- life & death, people losing their jobs and > their health > care at the time they need health care. And all while trillions of dollars > are added > to the economy with virtually nothing going to most ordinary taxpayers > ($1200 ? > $500/child won't go far to pay for healthcare bills, rent, food, > electricity, etc.). > The Democrats spent their leverage supporting the big businesses not the > people. > AOC's rhetoric on CARES might be entirely right-headed but that rhetoric > is not > policy. Her vote helps make policy. And what we heard in that voice vote, > and what we > hear from her tells us that she's not telling the unvarnished truth about > how she > voted on that bill. > > The truth will encourage AOC's constituents to vote her out but the > establishment > media won't have any of that. Instead of asking tough questions, demanding > clear > unmistakable answers, and judging elected officials by votes on bills, the > establishment media wants us to judge AOC's choices by her pre/post-vote > rhetoric > which is not policy. > _______________________________________________ > 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.uiuc at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 13:36:06 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 09:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?What_If_Not_Getting_the_October_Flu_Va?= =?utf-8?b?Y2NpbmUgSXMgYSDigJxTYXRhbiBJbXByb3ZlbWVudOKAnT8=?= Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10159460978177656 What If Not Getting the October Flu Vaccine Is a ?Satan Improvement?? What If It?s Like Texting While Driving? In undergraduate mainstream [neoclassical] Economics, the concept of ?Pareto improvement? is introduced. A change in the social allocation would be a ?Pareto improvement? if it would make at least one person better off, while making nobody else worse off. A social allocation is ?Pareto efficient? - or, in a widely condoned act of moral and intellectual sloppiness, merely ?efficient? - if no Pareto improvement is possible, if there is no possible change in the social allocation that would not make at least one person worse off. What would be an example of a Pareto improvement? On a clear night, letting your Facebook friends know that there?s a lunar eclipse. They can ignore the information if they don?t care or if they already had it. But if they didn?t know, or if they knew and forgot, and if they want to see the lunar eclipse, they can go to the window or walk outside. The pleasure of watching the lunar eclipse is free. It is non-exhaustible and non-excludable. Enjoying the lunar eclipse doesn?t use it up, there?s still just as much lunar eclipse there for everybody else to enjoy. Enjoying the lunar eclipse doesn?t interfere with anybody else enjoying it. So a social allocation that isn?t Pareto efficient is pretty bogus. Why not make some people better off, if you could do it without hurting anybody else? But the idea of Pareto efficiency is also morally quite limited, a pretty low bar. Suppose the social allocation is that one person has everything, and everybody else has nothing, and the one person who has everything cries like a baby if you take a nickel away from them to help anybody else. Then that allocation is ?Pareto efficient,? even though most people are starving to death. So in the world in which we live, the concept of ?Pareto efficiency? isn?t helping us improve things very much. Because a lot of the things we need to do to improve society involve taking a nickel away from the very rich to help everybody else. Armed with the idea of ?Pareto improvement,? some undergraduate in Economics, name unknown, once coined the idea of a ?Jesus improvement.? A Jesus improvement makes everybody else better off, but one person much worse off. Armed with the idea of ?Jesus improvement,? we can now introduce the idea of a ?Satan improvement.? A Satan improvement makes one person slightly better off, while making everybody else worse off. What would be an example of a ?Satan improvement?? Texting while driving. You?re driving on the interstate, you?re bored out of your mind. Your cell phone goes ding: somebody texted you. You look around. There?s almost no cars. Surely, you think to yourself, you could safely read the text and find out what your friend said. That?s a Satan improvement. Here?s who will derive zero benefit from you reading that text right now: other drivers. Here?s who will pay increased cost of increased risk: other drivers. You might be slightly better off, but all the other drivers will be worse off. It?s a Satan improvement. That?s why, in many jurisdictions, it?s illegal. The interstate isn?t like the lunar eclipse. To make the interstate work for all the drivers, we need to share it responsibly. Right now, when we encourage all Americans who can to get the annual flu vaccine in October, they tend to answer our proposal solely in terms of their perceived individual self-interest. Isn?t that odd? There are social costs to not getting the annual flu vaccine in October. And apparently those social costs just increased dramatically, because the CDC is warning us that it is likely that there will be another, worse outbreak of covid-19 in the winter, at the same time as the annual flu outbreak. And if the future were like the present, that would mean that people who can who don?t get the annual flu vaccine in October would be killing more other Americans than usual, because a key feature of the death toll from covid-19 is the overloading of the health care system. Wasn?t it just five seconds ago that we were ?all in this together?? Why isn?t this morally obvious? Why would anyone here who claims to be a socially responsible person argue with me now? If you?re a sociopath, what are you doing here, on my Facebook page? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkb3 at icloud.com Thu Apr 30 02:10:36 2020 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 21:10:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the Biden Trump vote Message-ID: <822C15C8-1D9C-4FD4-912E-7DB062B58487@icloud.com> I simply report it, the Interview with C.J. POLYCHRONIOU: A powerful but disturbing ?debate", but with no mention of war-like tendencies of Biden (and earlier, Clinton, Obama) relative to Russia and China, also Iran, and omitting Biden?s vote and support for the murderously destructive consequential Iraq war. Then, there is the Congress to consider. Yes, I?m very uncomfortable with what?s before us as a result of the coming election. Here?s the interview: [/truthout.org/articles/chomsky-covid-19-has-exposed-the-us-under-trump-as-a-failed-state/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=7135e5f4-c0e9-486f-9b96-d6576625d16d ] Many on the left feel, naturally, and with much justification, extremely uncomfortable about Joe Biden. In fact, we hear now from some quarters the same arguments we heard in 2016 about Hillary Clinton, which is to say that it would be unconscionable for progressives to accept the ?lesser of two evils? principle. How can we understand the political and conceptual context of electoral choices made by progressives and the left in November 2020? These questions are plainly important. They are a matter of intense discussion and often impassioned debate on the left, and plenty of invective. That makes them worth discussing. To be quite frank, I don?t see much other reason for discussing them. I?ve tried to explain in recent interviews, and judging by the reactions, have failed. So, I will repeat in more detail. I?ve been around for a long time and can?t think of a candidate about whom I was not ?extremely uncomfortable,? at least since FDR (and I was too young to have considered opinions then). In Biden?s case it?s easy to think of reasons to be extremely uncomfortable.?We can begin with his participation in the destruction of Libya and Honduras, in Obama?s global assassination campaign, in breaking all records in deportation ? and on from there.?But while continuing with constant efforts to change that world, we have to take off a few minutes to each make our own choices on election day. In the moral domain, what matters is the predictable consequences of your actions, those you are well aware of but choose to ignore. No one cares if you feel your conscience is clear. Let?s think through the two concepts that lie behind the question: ?unconscionable? and ?lesser of two evils principle.? Let?s start with ?unconscionable.? There are those ? including close personal friends and long-time activists whom I greatly respect ? who take the position that some actions are simply ?unconscionable,? whatever the consequences. I will ignore this position. To me, frankly, it seems not worth discussing. In the moral domain, what matters is the predictable consequences of your actions, those you are well aware of but choose to ignore. No one cares if you feel your conscience is clear. Let?s turn to the lesser of two evils principle. Throughout my lifetime of activism (almost 80 years), I?ve been familiar with two doctrines about voting. One is the official doctrine. Official doctrine holds that politics consists of showing up every few years, pushing a lever, then going back to one?s private pursuits. Citizens are ?spectators,? not ?participants in action,? according to official doctrine. They can choose one or another member of the leadership class (?the responsible men?) but that?s the limit of popular participation. I happen to be quoting Walter Lippmann, a respected public intellectual of the 20th century (a Wilson-FDR-JFK liberal), in his ?progressive essays in democracy,? but the ideas are representative of prevailing liberal opinion. They trace back to the framers of the Constitution. That?s why the ?gold standard? in constitutional scholarship, a fine and illuminating study by Michael Klarman, is called ?The Framers? Coup ? ? a coup against the popular demand for democracy. On the right, views are much harsher. A second doctrine is the one that has always prevailed on the left, call it ?left doctrine.? Politics consists in constant direct popular engagement in public affairs, including a wide variety of activism on many fronts. Occasionally an event comes up in the formal political arena called an ?election.? For left activists, that requires spending a brief period assessing the options (a very brief period for legitimate activists, who?ve been following everything relevant closely). Then comes a decision as to whether it?s worthwhile to take a few minutes away from ongoing political work to push a lever in the quadrennial extravaganza. It?s at most a brief departure from political engagement. That?s the doctrine that I?ve followed all my life, sometimes abstaining because the show didn?t seem to matter and there?s no point legitimizing the charade by participating, sometimes voting for a third party, sometimes voting for Jones if it?s important to block Smith. I?ve sometimes voted for a Republican, in years when the Republicans were still a bone fide political party and had a better candidate. There are, of course, myriad other cases, but the general point of left doctrine seems clear. In recent years, a third doctrine has made an appearance and is now consuming much debate on the left: the lesser of two evils principle. I?d never heard of it before, in a lifetime of intensive political engagement (in the left doctrine sense). And it seems quite strange to me. It obviously is quite different from left doctrine, the prevailing doctrine on the left. The intensive debate about it falls within official doctrine, with its laser-like focus on the elections. My own feeling about the lesser of two evils principle, of course, is that we should reject it in favor of left doctrine. It has no merits that I can see, so I think we can put it aside, along with the often?fevered debate about it. Let?s now consider the immediate case in hand. If the traditional left doctrine were applied to the current situation, it would require comparing Trump and his entourage with Biden and his, and asking whether there is a difference between them. I personally think the difference is colossal. First and decisive, another four years of Trump and we?ll have approached or possibly passed tipping points on the path toward environmental catastrophe toward which Trump is racing, his ?party? in tow, virtually isolated in the world, certainly in the political system here. Just as important, the arms control regime will be dismantled, sharply increasing the threat of terminal war. The severe threats that Trump has incited in the Middle East will have increased, if not exploded. The Doomsday Clock, already reduced to seconds under Trump, will probably be close to abandoned. The reactionary international led by the White House that Trump is establishing will be well solidified. At home, the judiciary will be so packed by ultra-right young judges that no progressive initiatives will be able to be implemented for a generation. By the wayside we?ll be observing other horrors, like children sent to concentration camps on the border, Black people murdered on a whim, etc. An advocate of left doctrine will spend a few minutes reviewing the familiar facts, then take off another few minutes to push a lever, then go back to work. I know of only one proposed counterargument. We have to put pressure on the Democratic establishment. To begin with, it?s not a counterargument. It simply reiterates the main thesis of left doctrine: constant pressure. The only remaining question is how to impose pressure. There are, basically, two proposals on the table. The first is left doctrine. The second is refusing to vote for Biden. Let?s take a look at these. Left doctrine efforts can work, as they often have before. We all know that that has been the main source of progress over the years. First, left doctrine. We continue with what has been done, and has been very effective. One illustration is the Sanders campaign, which has been a remarkable success in shifting debate and policy choices to the left. The activism of the Sunrise Movement ? aided by young congresswomen brought to office in the Sanders wave, notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ? has brought to the legislative agenda a Green New Deal, with the cooperation of liberal Democrat Ed Markey, senator from Massachusetts. Some version of a Green New Deal is essential for survival. There have also been significant shifts in other areas (health care, minimum wage, harsh repression in vulnerable communities, women?s rights, on and on). We can, in fact, see this in Biden?s program, which is well to the left of previous Democratic front-runners. That?s why Biden is supported against Trump by Sanders (who had a large role in bringing the shift about) and also by longtime labor activists like Lawrence Mishel and Jared Bernstein. It?s not my program, or yours, but we can hardly doubt that it is an improvement over what preceded. Left doctrine efforts can work, as they often have before. We all know that that has been the main source of progress over the years, particularly when there were administrations susceptible to activist pressure. It could be argued that political programs are just words. True, but irrelevant. Left doctrine efforts can keep Biden?s feet to the fire, as has often happened in the past. And there will be opportunities to go far beyond, an urgent necessity. In contrast, we can be sure that a Trump administration will be rock solid in opposition. The second approach is to refuse to vote for Biden in the hope that withholding the vote will convince the Democratic establishment to take us seriously down the road. I can?t honestly construct a plausible version of this view, and it would be unfair to try. Turning finally to your question, ?How can we understand the political and conceptual context of electoral choices made by progressives and the left in November 2020?? To me the answer seems clear. We should assess whether there is meaningful difference between the candidates, and also recognize that, for most of us, voting takes a few minutes. Then we go back to our real activist work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 16:45:46 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:45:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Krystal Ball is a grifter Message-ID: "But thus far, nobody has benefited more financially from the group than Ball herself. Of the $445,000 Ball raised for the group, she paid herself more than a third of that ? $174,000 ? in salary, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission. The majority of her salary ? $104,000 ? came in the first three months of this year alone. That?s nearly eight times more than the nearly $22,000 the PHP has used to support its dozen endorsed candidates, some of whom have received just a single $1,000 contribution. Political groups with a glaring discrepancy between personal salaries and candidate contributions are often deemed so-called ?Scam PACs,? a type of organization that enriches its founders while doing little to assist the cause or candidate they purportedly support. And indeed, when presented with the FEC data by McClatchy, several of PHP?s donors and supporters reacted with anger, going so far as to withdraw their endorsement and contributions. ?As a donor to the People's House Project and someone who had hoped it would make a positive impact in getting candidates elected, I am as disappointed as anyone that so little of the money raised has made its way to candidates,? Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, one of the group?s most important early supporters, said in a statement to McClatchy. ?I can no longer support this PAC.? " https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article210775574.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Apr 30 19:34:46 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:34:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Pushback - best account I've seen Message-ID: <6D6A249F-2D3C-4F7B-A0FC-8B80BD428BF6@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kqgTKf0kw&fbclid=IwAR3baPBWrHTxSiPYeLXr6ocs9H5iJxWK7oQFZ1au3MMahyUlOBjSvQMPCw4 From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Apr 30 20:18:51 2020 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Truthout Message-ID: https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-covid-19-has-exposed-the-us-under-trump-as-a-failed-state/ From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Apr 30 22:57:38 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Truthout In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8c8a1228-50fc-5048-4c24-8cd3f38f36ea@forestfield.org> C. G. Estabrook wrote: > https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-covid-19-has-exposed-the-us-under-trump-as-a-failed-state/ Any idea when this interview was conducted? The only indication I noticed on this page was when the interview was published -- April 29, 2020.