Sunday, December 25, 2016

25 December - Netvibes 2 ( 2 of 2 )

  • Noted on My Opera

2012: What's the 'real' truth?

December 25, 2016 Instead of News, four valuable articles. - Earth Bombarded by Mysterious Galactic High Energy Waves: An Increased Risk of Coming Earthquakes? by Joachim Hagopian  This is a balanced, well-researched, scholarly presentation, giving us the opportunity to make up our own minds about events that may well be coming … Continue reading →24 Dec
What Being ‘Dog Tired’ Really Means :) . . . sent by a Reader . . . Merry Christmas! Hugs, ~Jean - To those readers who sent me warm, personal wishes, my thanks. I really appreciate them at this time. Love and hugs, ~Jean24 Dec
December 24, 2016 Evening News . . . I believe the tide is turning, but we must not stop our efforts! ~J - From a Reader, Tim: ASCENSION WAVE, TRANSDIMENSIONAL WAR, DAYS TO COME, by James Gilliland Jean: I felt more energy coming in last night. It wasn’t as strong as before, and I wasn’t knocked over by it, but it was there. … Continue reading →24 Dec
December 24, 2016, Morning News - Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, from NEO . . . this (below)pretty well says it all — for me, as well🙂 I’ve been blessed with wonderful Readers and contributors, many of whom have become friends. To everyone who … Continue reading →24 Dec
December 23, 2016, Evening News and UPDATES - Tel Aviv rejects ‘shameful & absurd anti-Israel resolution’ In order to “negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution,” Israel is looking forward to working with President-elect Trump and with “all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike.” UN … Continue reading →23 Dec
December 23, 2016 BREAKING!!! plus all other UPDATES will appear here today! - FINALLY, I HAVE REASON TO SAY FROM MY HEART TO YOURS: MERRY CHRISTMAS! AND MAY THE SPIRIT OF LOVE COME TO DWELL IN ALL OUR HEARTS! ~JEAN PS I spent Christmas of 1958 n a Palestinian refugee camp south of Beirut, … Continue reading →23 Dec
UPDATE: December 23, 2016, News - UPDATE: Victims at Argentinian school for deaf say entire church hierarchy knew about pedophile priests yet did nothing * * * * * * Trump Doubles Down On Nukes: “Let It Be An Arms Race, We’ll Outlast Them All”, Zerohedge “Let … Continue reading →23 Dec
December 22, 2016, Afternoon News - My position on Donald Trump, by Jon Rappoport, December 22, 2016 . . . Jon’s serious reality-reality gives us all lots to consider, and so I hope everyone will take time to read and remember it. We can see the many complicated … Continue reading →22 Dec
December 22, 2016, Morning News - Foxes Guard Facebook Henhouse, by F. William Engdahl Conclusion: It’s not even the foxes who are guarding the Internet Henhouse. It’s the werewolves of CIA and US Government censorship. Whether the explosive Pizzagate Podesta revelations merely triggered a dramatic acceleration … Continue reading →22 Dec
December 21, 2016 Evening News - Putin declares 2017 Year of Ecology in Russia Trump’s OMB pick seems poised to ignite a worldwide financial crisis – The Washington Post “Whatever their differences on line-item details Mulvaney and the president-elect have at least one major thing in … Continue reading →21 Dec

AMERICAblog NewsAMERICAblog News

Trump NY campaign chair wishes Obama dead, calls Michelle a male ape who belongs in Africa - Donald Trump’s New York state campaign cochair Carl Paladino went off on a racist rant this week, wishing death upon President Obama, while suggesting that the First Lady is a male ape who belongs in Africa. Paladino’s comments fit into a larger pattern of normalization of hate and intolerance since Donald Trump arose on the political scene, including Trump appointing an Alt Right -enabling publisher as his top White House strategist. (The Alt Right is a newish conservative political movement based on white supremacy and ant-Semitism. Trump White House strategist Steve Bannon was until recently a publisher of a premier platform for the Alt Right. This did not stop Trump from picking Bannon for one of the most senior White House posts. Bannon also ran Trump’s campaign.) ________________TIP JAR: Please support AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and progressive advocacy with a generous gift this holiday season. Our ads raise very limit money, we rely on you to keep AMERICAblog going. Please help us continue fighting the incoming Trump regime. (Contributions are not tax-deductible.) $ Here are Paladino’s comments to Artvoice, and alternative paper, when asked about his wishes for 2017: Artvoice: What would you most like to happen in 2017? Carl Paladino: Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford. He dies before his trial and is buried in a cow pasture next to Valerie Jarret, who died weeks prior, after being convicted of sedition and treason, when a Jihady cell mate mistook her for being a nice person and decapitated her. Artvoice: What would you most like to see go in 2017? Carl Paladino: Michelle Obama. I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla. Paladino has a history of outrageous comments, including calling gays “dysnfunctional,” telling a Utah delegate that she should be “hung for treason,” and that Mr. Khan doesn’t deserve the title of Gold Star dad because he might be an ISIS sympathizer. Paladino’s latest comments about President Obama could end up being an incitement to violence, and his comments about First Lady Michelle Obama are flat out racist. The recent “pizzagate” fiasco, where a North Carolina man who follows Republican-generated conspiracy theories opened fire in a restaurant in Washington, DC, shows just how dangerous these kind of incendiary comments really are. When will Donald Trump show some leadership and rebuke the racism and hatred of the co-chair of his New York campaign? When will Donald Trump show some leadership and rebuke the co-chair of his New York campaign? 23 Dec
The merits of yelling at Ivanka Trump - A man was reportedly kicked off a flight today after yelling at fellow passenger Ivanka Trump that her father was “ruining the country.” My friend Brett Di Resta tweeted about it today, writing: “Democrats and Progressives, don’t do this please. In other words, don’t be an a-hole.” Is Brett right? Let’s discuss. First off, while Ivanka Trump is Donald Trump’s daughter, and de facto First Lady (at least for the time being), Ivanka is also soon to be one of Donald Trump’s most trusted White House advisers. She’s far more than a “first child,” and shouldn’t be treated any differently than we would any other top Trump official. So the question becomes not “whether it’s fair to yell at Ivanka,” but rather, “whether it’s a good idea to yell at Trump officials at all.” And I’m not entirely convinced Brett is right. Putting aside the fact that this happened on a plane — planes are notoriously bad places to cause a scene — is yelling at government officials off limits? It isn’t for Republicans. If you’ll remember during the Bush v. Gore recount in 2000, Republican operatives from DC (I knew one of them) stormed the room in Florida where local officials were examining ballots. Those 20-some operatives pretended to be an angry mob of angry voters, irate that the recount was still going on — when in fact, they were working on behalf of the Republican party. And they accomplished their goal: The media fell for it, and reported that the recount was simply out of control! ________________TIP JAR: Please support AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and progressive advocacy with a generous gift this holiday season. Our ads raise very limit money, we rely on you to keep AMERICAblog going. Please help us continue fighting the incoming Trump regime. (Contributions are not tax-deductible.) $ ________________ Fast forward to the debate over health care reform and “Obamacare.” In that summer of 2009, reminiscent of the winter of Bush v. Gore, the Republicans organized mobs of supporters to storm congressional townhall meetings (the meetings members of Congress hold with constituents back home), and effectively scare the bejeesus out of any legislators thinking of supporting President Obama’s reforms. Again, it was fake grassroots intended to create a perception that the country was rising up, and it worked. And just a few days ago, I read about Republican congressmen who are afraid of standing up to Donald Trump, lest Breitbart, Hannity, the racist Alt Right and the rest of the GOP mob descend on them. It happened to one congressman, and all the others got the message. Yet again, Republican bullying tactics did their job. Yelling at elected officials works. I remember when I worked for Senator Ted Stevens back in the early 1990s. The Senator had just gotten back from a trip to Alaska, came to see me, and barked at me because some constituent had yelled at him in the airport. It didn’t matter whether the constituent was right — the voter back home had yelled about some issue I worked on, and that was enough to convince the Senator that I had messed up, and that I’d better fix it fast. The other thing that regularly set Stevens off? Angry letters to the editor in the papers back home. Republicans understand that mean girls rule. I’m not necessarily suggesting that folks yell at Ivanka during take-off. But people like Ivanka, who seem to have their heart in the right place (if we can believe what we read about her), and who have zero experience in politics, need to hear from real people about just how concerned we are about her father. (As do the rest of the Trump’s staff, who seem far less good-hearted than his daughter.) Then again, I once gave a quick snort while walking by Ed Meese. With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever. Please support our work with a generous donation. We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Follow me on Twitter & Facebook: Follow @aravosis 22 Dec
We can stop Trump - Hi, this is John Aravosis, the editor of AMERICAblog, sending you some holiday cheer, updating you on my recent efforts to stop Donald Trump, and soliciting your financial support for my ongoing work. As some of you know, I left blogging two years ago to take a job at the United Nations in New York City. At the time, the world was so different and full of hope. Barack Obama was in the White House. LGBT rights were at an all-time high. And it seemed a good time to leave Washington in good hands and venture into the world of international poverty alleviation. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Donald Trump is weeks away from becoming president, and every issue we care about, from LGBT rights to the environment, is now in danger. As a result, I’ve decided to move back to Washington, DC. I’ll be leaving New York at the end of February — to take the fight directly to Donald Trump, and I hope you’ll consider contributing financially to help support my work. I am back blogging at AMERICAblog, tweeting on Twitter as well (Twitter has been an increasingly effective platform for influencing the media and developing alliances), and am now working with a growing number of activists and politicos, on both the left and right, to forge a bipartisan coalition to stop Donald Trump. It’s going to take a lot of work, and I’m not promising there won’t be pain along the way — there will. But I truly believe that Trump is stoppable. One thing I’ve found over the years, whether on LGBT rights advocacy or any other progressive issue, is that regardless of how dire it may look, things will eventually turn around IF YOU WORK AT IT. As many of you know, I’ve been working on LGBT advocacy at the national level since 1993. I never believed we’d win the right to marry in my lifetime; and even worse, in November of 2008, after Prop 8 passed in California, LGBT people thought we were doomed for decades to come. Yet, in fewer than eight years, we’ve now had more LGBT civil rights advances than in the 80 years preceding. My point is that regardless of how dark the times, your fortunes can turn around precipitously. Things can change, but they won’t unless you shrug off the loss and start fighting again. I am going to continue blogging at AMERICAblog, and microblogging on Twitter, while I continue to pursue working with our allies in forging a long-term strategy to take on, and down, Donald Trump. But as I do that, I need your help. The ads on the blog no longer make any significant money, and haven’t since the economic crash in 2008. Still, I’ve kept blogging and financing this work via my consulting (or my own pocket), because it’s important to keep fighting the good fight. But in order to do keep doing that, I need your support. Won’t you please consider making a generous donation to me and my work at AMERICAblog this holiday season? With your support, I can continue to monitor and expose the incoming Trump administration, and explore ongoing advocacy opportunities to embarrass Trump and build a larger progressive grassroots response. All of you know the work I do. It’s unconventional and effective. But it’s not supported by the establishment, and never has been. To be an effective advocate and activist outside of the large Washington organizations, you need independent support. I believe I’ve proven my effectiveness and commitment over these 24 years in progressive advocacy, and hope you will generously support my work this holiday season. You can donate via this page for PayPal donations. Or this page for non-PayPal donations. Thank you all so much for your ongoing support, and your commitment to making a difference. We can and do make a difference when we commit ourselves and believe. I believe we can take down Donald Trump. I hope you do too. Have a great holiday, and a happy new year. JOHN ARAVOSIS Editor in Chief, AMERICAblog New York City 22 Dec
Merry Christmas, from Chiron Beta Prime - One of the best Christmas videos ever. Chiron Beta Prime This year has been a little crazy for the Andersons. You may recall we had some trouble last year. The robot council had us banished to an asteroid. That hasn’t undermined our holiday cheer. And we know it’s almost Christmas by the marks we make on the wall. That’s our favorite time of year. Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime, Where we’re working in a mine for our robot overlords. Did I say overlords? I meant protectors. Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime. On every corner there’s a giant metal Santa Claus, who watches over us with glowing red eyes. They carry weapons and they know if you’ve been bad or good. Not everybody’s good but everyone tries. And the rocks outside the airlock exude ammonia-scented snow. It’s like a Winter Wonderland. (They tried to decorate and make it look more Christmassy, but what they did was more like Christmas in hell. They nailed a Santa to a cross in front of everyone, It wasn’t pleasant but I’m sure they meant well. And the rocks outside the airlock exude ammonia-scented snow. It’s like a Winter Wonderland.) Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime, Where we’re working in a mine for our robot overlords. Did I say overlords? I meant protectors. Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime. That’s all the family news that we’re allowed to talk about. We really hope you’ll come and visit us soon. I mean we’re literally begging you to visit us. And make it quick before they [MESSAGE REDACTED]. Now it’s time for Christmas dinner – I think the robots sent us a pie! You know I love my soylent green. Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime, Where we’re working in a mine for our robot overlords. Did I say overlords? I meant protectors. Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime. Note: lyrics in parentheses are from the alternate version of the song. 21 Dec
How to stop Trump - We’re stuck with President Trump, for now, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do things to minimize the damage, and ultimately force him from office. First off, we have to deal with the elephant in the room — the old, “McConnell said he wanted to stop Obama, and now YOU want to stop Trump — you’re both just as bad!” In fact, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and many Republicans opposed President Obama from the outset for entirely false reasons. One, they claimed Obama was a socialist; which at the time, and even more so in retrospect, was equal parts bizarre and absurd. Second, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that for some Republicans their biggest problem with Obama was his race. Donald Trump leading the “birther” movement comes to mind. Birtherism was about race. Obama was a black man, and some in the GOP felt the need to define him as the “other” — preferably an African other. McConnell’s concerns about Obama were irrational at worst, and overly-partisan at best. Concern about the imminent Trump presidency, and Trump overall, are not simply rational, they’re bipartisan. ________________SUPPORT AMERICABLOG: Please support our independent journalism with a generous gift this holiday season. Ads raise very limit money, we rely on you to keep AMERICAblog going. Please help us pay the bills and continue to fight the incoming Trump regime. (Contributions are not tax-deductible.) $ ________________ As for the partisan argument, you did not have lead mainstream Democratic politicos opposing Barack Obama at the start of the Obama presidency. You do have that with Trump, because Trump has embraced dangerous policies (particularly with regard to foreign policy and his embrace of Russia’s Putin, and putting the Russian national interest above America’s own), in addition to having a dangerous temperament. Not only is Trump uncurious (e.g., refusing to take his regular intelligence briefings), but his intellectual inconsistency, penchant for lying, childlike insecurity, and his lack of an emotional sphincter (the most dangerous place in Washington is between Donald Trump and an iPhone) make Trump uniquely dangerous in a way we haven’t seen with recent presidents, especially as it pertains to foreign policy. A lack of predictability, and trustworthiness, in foreign affairs can lead to wars. That’s why, for starters, I believe it is every patriot’s duty to stop, or at least stymie, Donald Trump by all legal means necessary. The question, however, is how? The answer: target his polls. Donald Trump has never been a terribly popular politician. As “unpopular” as the media liked to label Hillary Clinton, Trump was always behind Hillary in the polls. And even today, while Trump’s favorability rating has increased significantly since the election, he’s still at a deficit: And while I’m not surprised that Trump is enjoying a post-election honeymoon (though he’s still more unpopular than popular), he’s the same Donald Trump, and the polls have consistently showed that people simply don’t like him. With Hillary no longer available as a convenient foil, it’s only a matter of time until the public returns to its pre-election Trump-funk. And that should be our goal: Help Trump release his inner child who nobody likes. 1. It shouldn’t be terribly difficult to make Trump unlikeable again. 2. As we saw during the election, as Trump’s favorability drops, Republicans in Congress will grow more bold in challenging him (as will Democrats). 3. A bolder Congress is more willing to publicly challenge Trump. 4. A challenged Trump is a less effective Trump. 5. A less effective Trump does less harm and has a harder time getting re-elected. How to unleash Trump’s inner unlikeability? Focus on his insecurity. Trump’s psyche is a terrifyingly open book. Much has been written by therapists discussing what psychological problems Trump might suffer from, but it’s obvious to everyone that the man is breathtakingly insecure about his place in the world — he needs the approval of others, and nothing is ever enough — and that is where we start. Trump’s biggest concern of late is his brutal loss to Hillary in the popular vote. Trump is 2.9 million votes behind Hillary in the popular vote, giving her a 2% lead over Trump. For the electoral vote winner to lose by nearly 3 million votes is historically unheard of. It is the worst victory in American history, if you look at the raw vote, and the 3rd worst if you look at his percent loss to Hillary. The fact that Trump keeps harping on his popular vote loss, including this morning on Twitter, means this is where we start. Below are all of Trump’s tweets of the past few days, including those of this morning — all but one show Trump’s neediness. And this morning’s tweets are all about Trump’s loss in the popular vote: Folks, Donald Trump won the election. And sure, he likely wouldn’t be president had FBI Director Comey and the Vladimir Putin not thrown the election his way. But nonetheless, Trump won. In one month, he’s going to be the leader of the free world. And it’s still not enough for the man. Trump is still whining about his various insecurities because his inner void remains unfilled. And if winning the presidency didn’t do the trick, nothing ever will. That insecurity is Trump’s tragic flaw. By playing on it, by poking it and exacerbating it we can get Trump to continually out the real him. And that’s the ironic beauty of the strategy. Unlike the racist birther strategy, ours is based on the truth: We simply want Trump to reveal himself. And I’m wagering that, if past is prologue, the public will be none-too-thrilled when they increasingly realize they elected a child to run and defend the nation. Now, this is only a first step. We should also be focusing on Trump preparing to sell us out to Russia. That too will hurt his poll numbers, make Trump even more insecure because it undermines his mandate, and it has the advantage of being a concern that Republicans and Democrats both share: Most Americans care more about America’s national interest than Russia’s. In Trump’s White House, it’s not clear whose national interest will be paramount. And that uncertainty, over the long term, inures to our advantage. With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever. Please support our work with a generous donation. We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Follow me on Twitter & Facebook: Follow @aravosis 21 Dec
I’ll work with Glenn Beck to stop Trump; and so should you - I’ll work with Glenn Beck in order to stop Donald Trump. And so should you. I jumped into a discussion on Twitter earlier today between Media Matters’ Oliver Willis and an editor of the conservative Red State blog, Ben Howe. Oliver and Ben were arguing over whether people opposing Trump should embrace Glenn Beck, the longtime conservative conspiracist and newfound Trump opponent. Ben said yes, Oliver said no, and I agree with Ben. And here’s why. There is no harm, and a lot of good, to be made forging alliances across party lines order to stop Trumpism at home and across the sea. Let me walk you through the argument. (And use Glenn Beck as a stand-in for any conservative/Republican/other who say they want to help). 1. What’s the harm? I hear a lot of people talking about how Beck can’t be trusted. And to that I say: So what? How will it retroactively undercut our work over the next year or four if Glenn Beck helps us build a movement to undermine Trump, only to eventually change his mind and support Trump? It won’t. In order to argue that we shouldn’t work with Beck, or any conservative, you have to tell me why. And by “why,” I mean: “How will it set our movement back working with Beck (or any other conservative)?” If you can’t tell me how we will be worse off working with Beck, then we should. 2. Purity politics are for winners, not losers. I’ve never been a big fan of purity politics; the notion that if you don’t agree with me 100%, you’re evil and must be destroyed. There’s a lot of that going around of late on the left and right (on the left, we saw it during the primaries and even during the election itself). But I’d go even further, I don’t care if you disagree with me 99% of the time. If you agree with me 1% of the time, and it’s an important issue, like the survival of our democracy, I’ll consider working with you. And that’s the way it should be. You do your issues, and our democracy, no favors by steadfastly refusing to compromise on your principles while Rome is burning. And Rome is definitely burning, baby. Not only is Donald Trump dangerous as hell on the issues and of temperament, but we don’t control the White House, the Congress or the Supreme Court. When you’re about as powerless as it gets, and the survival of the country is at stake, you make other arrangements, including working with some B-list demons if need be. 3. It’s not as if we haven’t worked with the devil before. During World War II, we worked with the Soviets, for God’s sake. They were truly awful people — like David Duke awful, on steroids. And lo and behold, the Sovs screwed us after the war by grabbing half of Europe, and then getting us into a 46 year Cold War that cost a lot of money, and a lot of lives. But it was still worthwhile joining together if only to stop the Nazis from world domination. Just because coalitions might be temporary, doesn’t make them any less useful. 4. Even Ted Kennedy reached across the aisle. I worked as a fellow in Senator Edward Kennedy’s office back in the early 1990s, and two things impressed me the most: Kennedy’s willingness to think big (he’d pull a $5 billion amendment out of his hate without giving it a second thought; and his willingness to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans when their interests coincided. Not only did Kennedy work with Utah Republican Orrin Hatch on AIDS issues, but even Jesse Helms’ staff would occasionally help Kennedy’s staff out on LGBT rights issues, of all things. Kennedy’s staff had established a relationship with Helms’ staff, and from time to time, Helms’ staff would throw them a very helpful legislative bone. And if Kennedy could work with Orrin Hatch, and his staff could maintain a useful relationship with Jesse Helms (who was also incredibly helpful on international AIDS issues), then I can work with Glenn Beck. In the end, it’s not about whether you trust someone or what his motivations are. It’s about what they can do for you. I don’t care about Glenn Beck’s motivations any more than I care what motivates my Cuisinart. I care about its utility, I care about whether I’ll be better off for using it. And it is helpful to our cause to have Republicans — especially the “crazy” ones with an audience — jump ship and join forces with us to stand up to Trumpism. If we want to take down, or at least neuter, Trump, we need to stymie him. And we need people with a voice, an audience, reach. We need to find people who are able to help us turn the public and the Congress against Trump’s un-American agenda. And some of those, maybe a lot of those, people are going to be Republicans. And that’s fine with me, because I’m here to win. Why are you here? With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever. Please support our work with a generous donation. We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Follow me on Twitter & Facebook: Follow @aravosis 20 Dec
Will Trump join Putin’s international white nationalist movement? - Austria’s Nazi-founded Freedom Party has been busy. Not only did the far-right anti-immigrant party recently sign a “cooperation pact” with Russian president Vladimir Putin; but the leader of the Freedom Party, Heinz-Christian Strache, was just in New York City paying homage to Il Duce, Jr., Donald Trump’s embattled National Security Adviser, and resident conspiracy-theorist-adherent, Gen. Michael Flynn. The news did not go unnoticed in America. Former presidential candidate Evan McMullin, a Republican patriot of sorts (McMullin, a former CIA officer and Hill staffer, ran for president as an independent in a bid to thwart Trump), noticed the coincidence of the Austrian extremists reaching out to both Moscow and Trump. McMullin’s second comment, about Putin “creating an international white nationalist movement” is chilling, and I fear, spot on. Trump has had repeated brushes with white nationalists / white supremacists / racism during his presidential run. Who can forget Judge Curiel, the Khan family, Trump labeling Mexican immigrants “rapists,” suggesting that African-Americans all live in the ghetto (so “what do they have to lose”), Trump picking Alt Right (white supremacist) publisher Steve Bannon for his top White House strategist, or Trump’s openly-antisemitic closing ad? ________________ SUPPORT AMERICABLOG: Please support our independent journalism with a generous gift this holiday season. Ads raise very limit money, we rely on you to keep AMERICAblog going. (Contributions are not tax-deductible.) $ ________________ So it’s troubling that Flynn, who, along with a number of other Trump staff, already has troubling ties to Moscow (and an odd embrace of conspiracy theories), is now cavorting with Austrian white nationalist leaders. Even more troubling is what McMullin suggests, that this is part of an effort by Vladimir Putin to create an “international white nationalist movement.” And while it might at first seem out of sorts for a Russian leader to ally with white nationalists (Russian history and culture is decidedly anti-Nazi because of Russia’s harrowing experience with Hitler in World War II), this wouldn’t be the first time Putin used neo-Nazi movements to advance his policy goals. For years, Putin used Russian and Ukrainian neo-Nazis to further his anti-LGBT policies. Russian neo-Nazis kidnap a young gay man. I covered Putin’s neo-Nazi bromance in depth a few years back. But in a nutshell, Putin was informally using Russian and Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups to terrorize gay and transgender Russians. The groups would kidnap young gay and trans people, film their torture, and then extort money from them in exchange for a promise not to publish the video, which was then published anyway. The neo-Nazi groups claim to have kidnapped some 1,500 LGBT people, while the Russian government ignored the glaring proof (the neo-Nazis videotaped their crimes!) and refused to prosecute until we finally got the attention of international media. So Putin has no problem cozying up to Nazis when it suits his purposes, the same way he’s now cozying up to other far-right (and some far-left) extremists across the globe. Donald Trump has shown an inexplicable interest in defending Putin personally, and Russia generally, often at the cost of America’s own national interest. And top Trump aide, Gen. Flynn, is meeting with European racist leaders at the same time that Vladimir Putin is forming an international alliance with the same. Is the Flynn meeting Trump’s first step in joining Vladimir Putin’s white nationalist cooperation pact? With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever. Please support our work with a generous donation. We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Follow me on Twitter & Facebook: Follow @aravosis 20 Dec
What if we asked the Electoral College to choose Mike Pence over Donald Trump? - A reader emailed me yesterday with a fascinating suggestion: What if we asked the Electoral College (EC) to select Mike Pence instead of Donald Trump as president? While I certainly prefer Clinton to Pence, I worry about the repercussions of the EC picking the other party to be president. Trump won. Granted, his election was unfair — FBI Director Comey and Russian intelligence rigged it so that Hillary couldn’t win. But, I still worry about what would happen if the EC chose the Democratic candidate instead of the Republican one. Now, it’s the EC’s right to choose whomever is best suited for the job. And, admittedly, it would be ironic for Republicans to claim that it’s fair for the EC to pick Trump over Hillary, even though Hillary has nearly 3 million more votes than Trump, but it wouldn’t be fair for the EC college to fulfill the rest of its mission, stopping unworthy candidates from assuming the presidency. Still, I worry about popular unrest should Trump not be seated. So what about the EC picking Pence instead of Trump? This proposal has the advantage of picking not only someone who was on the ticket, but also someone of the same party as the man who won the electoral vote. It would be harder for the Republicans to complain if the EC chose someone of their own party, someone they like. This would help to create a divide between die-hard Trump supporters, and the rest of the Republican party that never really liked Trump anyway. I get that Mike Pence is awful. And in some ways, Pence is even worse than Donald Trump. Mike Pence is a religious right extremist. He also has significant Washington experience, which means, unlike Trump, Pence might actually be able to get something done. But Pence has one thing going for him: He’s not crazy. Mike Pence isn’t irrational and he isn’t unpredictable. Mike Pence poses a danger to nearly every issue Democrats care about, but he doesn’t pose a danger to our democracy — at least not in the way Trump does –Pence won’t be handing our country over to a foreign enemy, and he’s much less likely to get us into World War III. And that’s something. Republican electors unwilling to vote for a Democrat, might just support a slightly more sane Republican. With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever. Please support our work with a generous donation. We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Follow me on Twitter & Facebook: Follow @aravosis 16 Dec
How to beat Trump, the Russians, and avoid the pitfalls of purity politics - I did a pair of Facebook Live and Periscope videos today about taking on Donald Trump and the Russians, and why it’s important that we work with Republican allies on this important issue. They’re the same video, on two different services, so I’m going to embed the Facebook version below. Enjoy.     With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever. Please support our work with a generous donation. We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Follow me on Twitter & Facebook: Follow @aravosis 14 Dec
Condi Rice praises Putin bff Tillerson for State Dept, doesn’t divulge he’s paying her - Donald Trump has been facing increasing opposition to his nominee for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, because of concerns over Tillerson’s overly-close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. In an effort to shore up the Tillerson nomination, Trump had Bush administration foreign-policy powerhouses Condoleezza Rice (National Security Adviser and Sec. of State) and Robert Gates (Sec. of Defense and CIA Director) issue statements in favor of Tillerson. And while Gates at least mentioned the fact that Tillerson is his and Condi’s client — Gates and Rice run a joint consulting firm — Rice did not. That’s an undivulged conflict of interest; and it raises the question of why Rice didn’t think it relevant that Tillerson pays her, and could easily stop paying her had she refused to support his nomination. Here’s Gates’ statement: And here’s Condi Rice’s: Tillerson, who is the CEO of Exxon, has an exceptionally close relationship with Putin, who awarded Tillerson Russia’s “Order of Friendship.” Exxon was hit hard by the West’s sanctions against Russia following its invasion and annexation of Ukrainian Crimea. Tillerson owns over $200 million of Exxon stock. What’s good for Exxon is good for Tillerson. You do the math. With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever. Please support our work with a generous donation. We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks. Follow me on Twitter & Facebook: Follow @aravosis 13 Dec

RSS

Interbreeding May Have Helped Modern Humans Adapt to Cold - BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA—The New York Times reports that an international team of scientists led by Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley, compared the genomes of nearly 200 Inuit living in Greenland with the genomes of living populations around the world, Neanderthals, and the one known Denisovan genome. The team members focused on a region of the Inuit genome that may affect the levels of brown fat in the body, which generates heat, and found that nearly all the Inuit in the study carried the same genetic variants in this region. The same region in Neanderthals and modern populations showed a partial match to the Inuit genome, but the Denisovan genome “was almost a complete match,” according to Nielsen. He suggests that interbreeding with archaic human species may have helped migrating modern humans adapt to new environments some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. “We do see these variants in other populations, like in South America and East Asia, but nowhere do we see the same frequency that we see in Greenland,” Nielsen said. To read in-depth about an excavation near a Yup'ik village in Alaska, go to “Cultural Revival.”23 Dec
5,000-Year-Old Rock Art Depicts Parents and Baby - PRATO, ITALY—Seeker reports that geologist Marco Morelli, director of the Museum of Planetary Sciences in Prato, led a team of researchers that found 5,000-year-old rock art on the ceiling of a small cavity in the Egyptian Sahara desert in 2005. The image, drawn in reddish-brown ochre, appears to depict a man and a woman with a baby floating above them. The woman’s head is missing due to damage to the painting. Morelli suggests that the position of the baby could indicate a birth or pregnancy. “As death was associated to Earth in contemporary rock art from the same area,” he said, “it is likely that birth was linked to the sky.” There are two animals in the scene: a headless lion, which has been found in other drawings in the region, and a baboon. There’s also a small circular mark to the side of the figures, which has been likened to a star. For more, go to “A Pharaoh’s Last Fleet.”23 Dec
16th-Century Turkey Bones Uncovered at English Monastery - CHESHIRE, ENGLAND—According to a report in Runcorn and Widnes World, researchers at the University of Sheffield found turkey bones among the thousands of bone fragments of sheep, pig, and cattle unearthed at Norton Priory between 1970 and 1987. Located in northwest England, Norton Priory was an abbey complex inhabited from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries. The turkey is thought to have been introduced to England from the New World in the early sixteenth century, and it became popular with Henry VIII and the wealthy, who until then had dined on swan, goose, peacock, and boar's head. For more on archaeology in England, go to “A Villa under the Garden.”23 Dec
Unusual Burial Uncovered on Anglo-Saxon Island - LINCOLNSHIRE, ENGLAND—According to a report in The Grimsby Telegraph, a team of researchers from the University of Sheffield is continuing to investigate an Anglo-Saxon site in the village of Little Carlton that may have been an island monastery or trading post. Archaeologist Hugh Willmott said that the team recently found the remains of a person buried face down in a narrow grave. The body is thought to have been placed in the grave after it had started to decompose, since its legs are facing the wrong way. “A great deal of care has been taken in this burial,” Willmott said. “So this could be an individual who perhaps has died away from the site and been brought here to be interred here specially.” Such an individual may have been royalty or a holy person. The site has also yielded writing implements, hundreds of dress pins, a lead tablet bearing a woman’s name, imported glassware, and seventh- and eighth-century coins, and is thought to have been abandoned in the eighth century due to Viking raids. To read in-depth about an Anglo-Saxon kingdom, go to “Letter from England: Stronghold of the Kings in the North.”22 Dec
Fragment of Engraved Stone Bowl Unearthed in Jerusalem - JERUSALEM, ISRAEL—A fragment of a 2,100-year-old engraved bowl was found in a ritual bathing complex in Jerusalem Walls National Park, according to a report in Jewish Business News. Hyrcanus, the name engraved on the bowl, is thought to have been a common one during the Hasmonean period. Esther Eshel of Bar-Ilan University said the bowl is one of the oldest chalk vessels found in Jerusalem. She and Doron Ben-Ami of the Israel Antiquities Authority explained that stone vessels were often used by Jewish people because they were considered to be vessels that could not become ritually unclean. For more on archaeology in Israel, go to “Sun and Moon.”22 Dec
Roman-Era Tombs Discovered in Western Turkey - KÜTAHYA, TURKEY—Hürriyet Daily News reports that three Roman-era tombs have been unearthed at a construction site in an area of western Anatolia known during the Roman period as Cotyaeum. Kütahya Museum director Metin Türktüzün said that the 2,000-year-old tombs each contained the remains of four or five people. The team expects to find additional tombs at the site. For more on archaeology in Turkey, go to “In Search of a Philosopher’s Stone.”22 Dec
Transformed Celtic Harness Fitting Found in Norway - TRONDHEIM, NORWAY—Horsetalk reports that a piece of bronze jewelry found by a metal detectorist near the Trondheim Fjord may have been crafted in a Celtic workshop. The ornament, thought to have been made in the eighth or ninth century as a fitting for a horse’s harness, resembles a bird and has fish- or dolphin-shaped patterns on each of its wings. Holes were later placed on the bottom of the ornament. Traces of rust on its back suggest that it had been turned into a brooch with a needle. “A housewife in mid-Norway probably received the fitting as a gift from a family member who took part in one or more Viking raids to Ireland or Great Britain,” said Aina Margrethe Heen Pettersen of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. She suggests that items brought back from the dangerous raids would have been treasured status symbols. For more, go to “A True Viking Saga.”22 Dec
Human Remains Found at WW II Plane-Wreck Site in India - ARUNACHAL PRADESH, INDIA—Team members of the Defense Prisoners of War/Missing in Action Accounting Agency (DPAA) traveled to northeastern India’s Lower Dibang Valley to search for the remains of U.S. soldiers who were killed during World War II. According to BBC News, more than 1,300 people are thought to have been lost in the region, primarily from aircraft crashes. The DPAA team discussed possible crash sites with local residents, who presented them with human remains recovered among plane wreckage. Additional remains were then recovered from the crash site. After approval from the government of India, the remains will be sent for study and possible identification at the DPAA laboratory in the United States. For more, go to “Archaeology of World War II.”21 Dec
An Update on the Lechaion Harbor Project - CORINTH, GREECE—According to The Greek Reporter, a team of archaeologists from the Greek Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities and the University of Copenhagen continues to investigate the ancient port of Lechaion, which served as Corinth’s main harbor for more than 1,000 years. The harbor complex had an outer harbor connected to a protected inner lagoon by a 650-foot-long canal built in the fourth century B.C. Topographic and geophysical surveys of the area revealed a large channel and several smaller channels connecting at least four harbor basins. Soil cores will help the researchers to learn more about the ancient landscape. The remains of a tower that protected the harbor entrance have been found, along with pieces of columns that may have been part of a colonnade lining the front of the harbor. A massive structure in the middle of the inner harbor is thought to have been the base of a lighthouse. The team also found an underwater wooden structure in the bay that may have been part of a pier. To read about another recent underwater discovery in Greece, go to “Antikythera Man.”21 Dec
Retaining Wall Discovered in Ancient Egyptian Cemetery - ASWAN, EGYPT—Ahram Online reports that a six-foot-tall wall has been found near the rock-cut tombs of Qubbet Al-Hawa by a team of archaeologists from the University of Birmingham, the Egypt Exploration Society, and the Qubbet Al-Hawa Research Project (QHRP). The wall is thought to support Old Kingdom tombs located on the upper terrace of the cemetery. “This find is likely to change our understanding of the ancient funerary landscape of Qubbet Al-Hawa,” said project codirector Essam Nagy. Pottery fragments in the wall date to the reign of King Pepi II of the Sixth Dynasty (2278–2184 B.C.), as well as the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom. This indicates "the expansion of the cemetery during the latter parts of both periods,” explained Eman Khalifa of the QHRP. Last month, the group announced the discovery of Sarenput I’s funerary causeway at the site. Sarenput I was governor of the area at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. General director of Aswan and Nubia Antiquities Nasr Salama thinks that additional tombs will soon be discovered at the site. For more, go to “A Pharaoh’s Last Fleet.”21 Dec

Atlanta Black Star » Feed

Nigerian Officials Reveal They are in Intense Talks to Release More of the Chibok Girls Captured By Boko Haram - Some of the 21 Chibok school girls released are seen during a meeting with Nigeria’s Vice President Yemi Osinbajo in Abuja, Nigeria, October 13, 2016. Sunday Aghaeze/Special Assistant to Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari/Handout via REUTERSNigerian authorities are involved in negotiations aimed at securing the release of some of the more than 200 girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in 2014 in the northeastern Nigerian town of Chibok, the president’s spokesman said on Thursday, Dec. 23. His comments, posted on Twitter, came in response to reports in Nigeria’s media that some of the girls had been released by the Islamist militant group, reports that he said were untrue. “The negotiations are ongoing and the Department of State Service, DSS is full of optimism that they will be successful,” Garba Shehu, a spokesman for President Muhammadu Buhari, said in a tweet. “To my friends spreading the news of a further release of Chibok Girls, we are not there yet,” he tweeted. in April 2014, around 270 girls were taken from their school in Chibok, Borno state, where Boko Haram has waged a seven-year insurgency aimed at creating an Islamic state, killing more than 15,000 people and displacing over two million. Dozens escaped in the initial melee, but more than 200 girls remained missing until October, when 21 of the girls were freed following mediation by Switzerland and the International Red Cross. Read more here.09:00
Hundreds of Ethiopian-Israelis Rejecting Mandatory Military Service In Protest of Institutional Racism - Israel Defense Forces – Standing Guard in Nablus(From Wikimedia Commons)In Israel, hundreds of citizens of Ethiopian descent are refusing to serve reserve duty in the Israel Defense Forces, citing racial discrimination by the Israeli government in various state agencies, including the police. As David Sheen reported in the San Francisco Bay View, more than 300 Ethiopian Jews have made the decision to refuse any military order to report for duty, including soldiers from all Israel Defense Forces infantry brigades and specialized commando units. As long as the nation fails to respect their civil rights, these Black “refuseniks” say they will fail to respect their obligations to the state. “So, let me get this straight: If my rights don’t exist, why should I have to do reserve duty?” asked Avishai Malson Tzaghon, an Ethiopian Israeli, in a video interview with the Bay View. “Our issue is not with the army. We are not saying that the army is the problem. It’s the state. The army is an arm of the state. We say to the state that we are starting off by no longer doing reserve duty.” Tzaghon said he also may stop fulfilling other obligations. “As long as the policy of discrimination and exclusion and disparaging treatment towards Ethiopian émigrés does not change, don’t bother talking to us about doing reserve duty,” refusenik Jajaw Bimro said. Like people of African descent in other white-dominated nations, Ethiopian Israelis experience racism in their daily lives. Tebeka, a legal aid society that provides free legal services to Ethiopian Israelis, strives to help in combating it. Racial discrimination affects all Israelis of Ethiopian origin, says Fentahun Assefa-Dawit, Tebeka’s executive director, particularly those who were born and/or raised in Israel, served in the army and now want to be an equal part of Israeli society. Fentahun Assefa-Dawit, Executive Director, Tebeka“And with that, there was some grievance, discontent and even anger about why these young people who served in the army should be treated differently than any others,” Assefa-Dawit told Atlanta Black Star, “because in the army, they are committed, they serve the country and fulfill their duties as citizens here In Israel.” He said only a “small number” of Ethiopian Israelis have refused to serve. In Israel, all able-bodied 18-year-olds are required to serve in the military, men serving for three years and women for two, though there are religious exemptions. While there were very few secular draft dodgers in years past, in recent years, the number of Israelis declining to serve has increased to 28 percent among men and 42 percent among women, according to the Bay View. Some of those rejecting further service are in fact already in the military. According to the Israeli nongovernmental organization Breaking the Silence, some combat veterans who were stationed in the Occupied Territories and charged with controlling the daily lives of the Palestinian population have refused to return to duty. In an effort to end the racist occupation, the organization has compiled testimony from 1,000 veterans who have witnessed the human-rights abuses that have resulted because of it. “Soldiers who serve in the Territories witness and participate in military actions that change them immensely. Cases of abuse towards Palestinians, looting and destruction of property have been the norm for years but are still explained as extreme and unique cases,” the group says on its website. “While this reality is known to Israeli soldiers and commanders, Israeli society continues to turn a blind eye and to deny what is done in its name.” Assefa-Dawit said that the institutional racism facing Israel’s Black Ethiopian population as a whole “includes discrimination, violence, racism in policing and excessive policing. It includes discrimination in public places, in universities and colleges, and everywhere.” He did say, however, that there has been heightened awareness of racism and discrimination toward Ethiopian Israelis and movement to improve the situation over the past few years. Tahunia Rubel, an Ethiopian-born Israeli model and actress, put it bluntly: “Israel is one of the most racist countries in the world,” Rubel said in an article in the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, where she criticized Israeli society, government and police. “People in Israel find it strange to see an Ethiopian woman who behaves like an Israeli.” Ethiopian-Israeli journalist Revital Iyov echoed Rubel’s sentiment in a commentary in the newspaper Haaretz. She made particular note of the dual oppression Ethiopian women face in Israel, pointing out that Rubel herself has received racist comments from white Israelis who called her “a disgusting African” and told her to “Go back to Ethiopia.” The journalist condemned the rampant racism in Israel, stating that minorities are accepted only if they remain quiet, stop complaining and show gratitude. “Israel commits racist crimes” Iyov said. “A prominent example is the police violence during the demonstrations by young Ethiopian men and women a year ago. Another example is the investigation that revealed the pressure on Ethiopian women to receive shots of the birth control hormone Depo-Provera before immigrating.” In addition to facing discrimination in employment, housing and other facets of daily life — even having their blood thrown in the trash when they donate, as the Bay View reported — Ethiopian Israelis also experience harassment from law enforcement. In August, Israeli Police Chief Roni Alsheich claimed publicly that it is natural for police to be more suspicious of Ethiopians because immigrants commit more crimes, according to Haaretz. Ethiopian-Israelis protest (Wikimedia Commons)The trigger that led to a wave of mass demonstrations among Black Israelis was the unprovoked attack and detention by two white police officers of Damas Pakada, a Black IDF soldier, in April 2015, Fssefa-Dawit told ABS. Calling it the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” Assefa-Dawit said that single incident mobilized the Ethiopian community, leading Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to form an inter-ministerial committee. The committee, of which Assefa-Dawit is a member, made 53 recommendations to eradicate racism in Israel, 17 of which were directly related to police violence. “We started another process with the police themselves where we demanded the police go out and announce that there is racism and discrimination against Ethiopian Israelis, that there is police violence against Ethiopian Israelis,” Assefa-Dawit said. “The police chief acknowledged that and we came forward with a list of demands to the chief of police.” Those demands included introducing body cameras to the police force (15,000 Israeli police officers will wear them), controlling and monitoring the use of tasers by police, mass recruitment of Ethiopian-Israelis to the police force and among higher-ranking police officers, and language accessibility during interrogation. “When teenagers are being interrogated, the parents have to be present. But what good will it do if the parents do not understand the language?” Assefa-Dawit said, noting that during interrogations involving Ethiopian Israelis, police must now have an interpreter or a bilingual officer present who speaks Amharic. Police also have agreed to begin the process of writing a code of conduct for officers to improve trust with the community. While Assefa-Dawit said change is taking place — the number of Black police officers is increasing, the police force is recruiting lawyers and academics, and Ethiopian Israelis are now among those training police officers — much more must be done. Yet, he believes the police have reached a “point of no return” in understanding they must address the public’s mistrust of police, increase their cultural sensitivity and improve their image, which is low among the Ethiopian Israeli, Haredi (Orthodox) and Palestinian communities. “I want to hold accountable the Israeli government, the Israeli society for the values they say they have,” Assefa-Dawit said. “I want them to look in the mirror and know what they are doing is wrong, and stand up for their declared values.” He also said that the reforms stemming from the Ethiopian Israeli community will ultimately benefit the entire society. In the meantime, Assefa-Dawit wants his people to believe in themselves. He wants them to take action, make the system responsive and know that they are as good as — if not better than — any white person. “Yes, there is racism and discrimination. Yes, we have to come up with a solution to eradicate it, and we do that by being stronger,” Assefa-Dawit said, urging Ethiopian Israelis to project strength and confidence, as they will be treated accordingly. Ultimately, Assefa-Dawit said the Ethiopian Israeli community wants less violence against them and more Black people serving on the police force and as high-ranking officers. “Demonstrations are important to reach a solution, but demonstrations are not going to be an aim,” he said. “They are a tool to achieve an end, to make life better, to reach justice and equality.”08:00
Western Nations Boycott UN Tribute that Lauded Fidel Castro as ‘Iconic and Influential’ - Fidel Castro (Wikimedia Commons)UNITED NATIONS — The president of the U.N. General Assembly called Fidel Castro “one of the 20th century’s most iconic and influential leaders” Tuesday, Dec. 20, at a memorial tribute to the late commander of the Cuban revolution who led his country for nearly 50 years.Peter Thompson told the audience in the assembly chamber that, for many people, Castro “embodied the struggle of the global south for independence, justice and development.” He said Castro’s “activism in pursuit of a fairer and more just world made him a symbol of resistance and inspiration to people across the world in Latin America, Africa and beyond.” Nearly 30 representatives of various groups and countries lauded Castro, who died Nov. 25 at the age of 90. There were, however, no speakers from Western nations. Outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Castro “one of the most important Latin American leaders of the 20th century” and “the most influential shaper of Cuban history since his own hero, Jose Marti, struggled for Cuban independence in the late 19th century.” Castro left “a major imprint on his country and global politics,” Ban said in remarks read by Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Miroslav Jenca. “Until his last days, he was deeply concerned about the future of humanity and the challenges of our times.” Speaker after speaker lauded Castro for providing Cubans with free health care and education, and for bringing Cuba’s illiteracy and infant mortality rates to among the lowest in the world. Venezuela’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Samuel Moncada, speaking on behalf of the Nonaligned Movement, recalled that Castro was a founding member of the organization that now represents 120 mainly developing countries. Read more here.24 Dec
Father Finds Former NFL Player Dead in Ransacked Detroit Home - The father of former Buffalo Bills linebacker Robert Eddins found his son and another man shot to death Tuesday, Dec. 20, in the basement of the ex-NFL player’s home. After not hearing from his son for 24 hours, Eddins’ father went to check on his son. He entered the Detroit home around 6 p.m. and found the place in shambles, according to WDIV Local 4 News. He discovered his 28-year-old son and a man identified as Ricky McFarlin, 32, shot to death in the basement. Eddins, the father of a 4-year-old son, and McFarlin, a husband and father of three, had been shot several times and left to die in a suspected robbery. While police have no leads as of this report, authorities believe the perpetrators tried to cover their tracks. “The gas was on from the stove. Somebody left it on. The pilots were not lit, so it looks like it was an intentional act,” Captain Kurt Worboys of the Detroit Police Department told ABC 10.24 Dec
‘Getting Respect’: How Different Groups Around The World Deal With Global Racism - Israelis take part in a demonstration in Tel Aviv called by members of the Ethiopian community against alleged police brutality and institutionalized discrimination, on May 3, 2015.(JACK GUEZ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)How do the oppressed respond to racism and how differently does each group respond depending on the country they live in? The authors of a new book explore the answers to these questions in a thought-provoking work that has implications for studying and addressing discrimination. In “Getting Respect: Responding to Stigma and Discrimination in the United States, Brazil and Israel,” the authors conducted an eight-year sociological study of 400 working- and middle-class people from five minority groups in three countries: African-Americans in New York, Afro-Brazilians in Rio de Janeiro, and Palestinian Arabs and Ethiopian and Mizrahi Jews in Israel. The interviewees included people who experienced discrimination (“being deprived of resources”) and those who dealt with stigmatizaton (“being assigned low status.”) “When asked about incidents where they were treated unfairly, these individuals described interactions where they felt underestimated, misunderstood, feared, overlooked, shunned or discriminated against,” the authors wrote. “They discussed their responses, including how they confronted their stigmatizers, aimed to avoid confirming racial stereotypes, used humor and chose to ignore the incident, often motivated by a desire to get respect.” In one case, an African-American man named Joe finds himself in an elevator with several white men at work. One of the men tells a joke about monkeys and Black people, causing Joe to become understandably stressed. Yet, he does not respond or react angrily because he has been on the job for only a week and does not want to be fired. One of the authors of the book, Michèle Lamont — a professor of sociology and African and African-American studies at Harvard University, director of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and the Robert I. Goldman Professor of European Studies — told Atlanta Black Star that the inspiration for the research came from an earlier work in which she compared Black and white workers in New York to North African and white workers.  Both African-Americans and North African immigrants are victims of racism in their respective societies, she noted, yet have different perceptions of equality. “One of the questions was, ‘What makes people equal?’ In the U.S., people talked a lot about money making people equal. If you can buy a house and I can buy a house, we’re equal. Whereas in France, no one ever said that. It was more like human nature is the same across groups or we’re equal citizens. So, I really felt like there was much more to be studied there,” Lamont told Atlanta Black Star. In addition to having an interest in conceptions of equality, the Harvard professor and current president of the American Sociological Association also was interested, as a comparativist, in examining experiences of stigmatization and discrimination. Michèle Lamont, Professor of Sociology and of African and African American Studies, Harvard University, and the Robert I. Goldman Professor of European Studies at Harvard University. She serves as the 108th President of the American Sociological Association in 2016-2017. www.michelelamont.org/The approach in “Getting Respect,” Lamont noted, was not merely to begin with the notion that every stigmatized minority group experiences racism but rather to get a sense of the “texture” of it across nations and how their experiences are explained by the context in which people live. It was important to understand the degree to which groups are in contact with each other, how much they interact and intermarry and the like. “So, it was not only a question of understanding variations in experiences of racism but also how can we account for it,” she said. According to the Harvard sociologist, the authors’ first objective was to try to understand how the phenotype of Blackness is associated with different experiences in the three countries studied. “You cannot presume that you know that being Black is interpreted the same across places,” Lamont said. “So, basically, what we argue in the book is that African-Americans have access to scripts and stories about the history of their group, which makes them much more clear-minded when it comes to experiencing something that they will attribute to racism, because it is so widely discussed in American society, this experience.” In Brazilian culture, by contrast, it is considered rude to make race a salient, integral part of your interactions with other people, she said. “The only context under which people would feel free to say, ‘What you’re doing, that was racist’ is if the N-word was used, if something very explicit was done,” Lamont said. Ethiopian Israelis, on the other hand, as Jewish immigrants want to assimilate into Israeli society, researchers said. And while they face blatant racism and do respond to that discrimination, their response is less confrontational and motivated by what Lamont describes as a desire to move up in society. While the book explores the fascinating topic of international racism and how different groups are stigmatized based on their Blackness, there are other groups discussed in the book that face racism not based on physical appearance or color but on other life circumstances that are shaped by politics. Arab-Israelis (Israelis citizens of Arab descent as opposed to Palestinians in the occupied territories), for instance are “not stigmatized on the basis on their phenotype because they’re physically indistinguishable from the others,” Lamont said. “But, people can quickly recognize when they talk, their accent or they carry their body a little differently and they are rejected because they are perceived as allied with Palestinians, who are viewed as terrorists. “You cannot just understand their experience, you have to understand their place in the national polity to make sense of what they live.” Resistencia Poetica is an anti-racism and anti-police-violence group that performs on buses, in the metro and in public spaces to raise awareness about the mistreatment of black people in Brazil’s black capital, Salvador.FAHEMA GABRThen, there are the Mizrahim (Israelis who are Jewish and of Arab descent) coming from countries such as Yemen and Iraq. “The case of the Mizrahi is a little different because they’re also Jewish and feel that they’re fully part of the country because it’s a Zionist country that says everyone who is Jewish is welcome and belongs,” Lamont said. “But at the same time the Ashkenazi Jews, the European Jews who created the state of Israel, tend to look down on the Mizrahim because their family comes from the Middle East … and are perceived as being backward.” Lamont added that although they are concentrated at the bottom of the Israeli socioeconomic structure and face exclusion like Black Brazilians and African-Americans, the Mizrahim pride themselves on their social integration and tend to be less confrontational. They speak of racism not as something that they experience, but as something in the past or something that happens to other people. Palestinian kids hold up a sign in solidarity with Eric Garner and U.S. protesters for racial justice. Photo by Hamdi Abu Rahma.Even as each of the five groups covered in the book has its own experience with oppression and legacy of resistance, there has been cross-pollination and influencing among them. For example, in the 1970s, the Mizrahim formed their own Black Panthers, a protest movement modeled after the African-American social justice organization. And in recent years, Palestinian activists showed solidarity with Black protesters in Ferguson, even giving them advice via social media on how to deal with police tear gas. This, as Ethiopian Israelis protest against police violence in the streets of Tel Aviv and proclaim that Black Lives Matter. Lamont said that the transnational transfer of ideas and models on how to deal with racism were important to her study. “There are a lot of cultural exchanges between the three countries, the civil rights movement in the U.S. and Black Lives Matter, etc. The massive mobilization that we see in the U.S. has a lot of implications abroad. So, for instance, in the context of Brazil, there’s been a lot of reactions to the Black Lives Matter movement because there’s massive police violence in Brazil, but there’s very little mobilization against it,” Lamont noted. “So, when they saw this massive mobilization in the U.S., a lot of people there started saying, ‘[Why do] we experience much worse than them, yet no one mobilizes?’ So, there’s a kind of transnational exchange and learning lessons across places.” Lamont said that while some of this exchange takes place through the media, there is also the example of the Durban conference, which led to Brazil creating anti-discrimination agencies and an anti-discrimination industry that had not existed. “So, it has to be the case that countries learn from each other, and also I gathered that Black Lives Matter took on the Palestinian cause and said, ‘This is racism as well.” Lamont says there are a few lessons that readers should learn from “Getting Respect” and its subject matter on racism. The first is that while much of the literature on racism in the U.S. centers around African-Americans, what is not as prominent is a focus on the universal experience of stigmatization. This book examines the African-American experience through the lenses of other national contexts, which Lamont believes is useful. And while some readers may know absolutely nothing about Israel or Brazil, the real-life stories and the feelings of the people in the research sound familiar. Further, the book is written with white people in mind, those who do not understand what Black people face on a daily basis and lack a proper context to appreciate the impact of racism. “Educating the ignorant” emerged as an important theme throughout the research for this book, according to Lamont. “People get extremely worked up, because with racism comes a sense that people’s dignity is really being challenged. The victims of racism feel like they’re not fully recognized for their words, and the people who feel like they’re being denounced for being racist feel like they are being given lessons in a way that is unfair because they don’t think of themselves as racist, even if they are.” Given the extremely high level of racial segregation in the U.S., many white people have no idea about the lives of African-Americans, Lamont said. “So, the book is also written to bring this to light for them, to really show, well yes, it’s understandable that people are really pissed off,” she said. “That’s the kind of thing that they have to deal with on a daily basis.”24 Dec
New Ebola Vaccine Will Give 100% Protection, WHO Says - Image via Doctorswithoutborders.orgA highly effective vaccine that guards against the deadly Ebola virus could be available by 2018, the World Health Organization says. Trials conducted in Guinea, one of the West African countries most affected by an outbreak that ended only this year, show the vaccine offers 100% protection and it is now being fast-tracked for regulatory approval. GAVI, a global vaccine alliance, paid Merck pharmaceutical company $5 million for 300,000 doses of the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine. Results published in The Lancet medical journal show that of the nearly 6,000 people who received the vaccine, all were virus free 10 days later. In a group of the same size not vaccinated, 23 later developed Ebola. Only one person who was vaccinated had a serious side effect that the researchers think was caused by the jab. This was a very high temperature and the patient recovered fully. It is not known how well the vaccine might work in children since this was not tested in the trial. Analysis – Tulip Mazumdar, Global Health Correspondent Ebola has been around for 40 years now. But it wasn’t until the height of the 2014 outbreak in West Africa that the world decided to invest some serious money into finding treatments and cures. I watched as families of those who had become infected were isolated in their homes. Often entire neighborhoods were quarantined behind orange fencing. That was their best chance of not becoming infected and infecting others. But as hundreds of people continued to die, and cases started being exported to Europe and the U.S. – the world decided to act. Now, two years later, we have a vaccine. It usually takes around 10 years. There were some mild side effects reported in this trial, and the vaccine is only known to protect against one of the strains of Ebola, but it is the most deadly Zaire strain. Read more here.23 Dec
Former Nuggets Coach George Karl Falls Back On Racist Stereotypes To Explain His Issues With NBA Stars - George Karl (Keith Allison/Flickr)Using  tired, old racist stereotypes, former Denver Nuggets coach George Karl has lashed out at some of his old players in his new book. In excerpts from his book “Furious George published in The New York Post, the 65-year-old blamed a lack of fatherly discipline and “posse,” among other things, for the problems he had with Carmelo Anthony, Kenyon Martin and J.R. Smith over the years. Karl attempted to explain why retired baller Martin and current New York Knicks forward Anthony had such difficult personalities in excerpts the New York Post obtained from his book “Furious George.” His conclusion? Absentee fathers. “Kenyon [now retired] and Carmelo [now with the N.Y. Knicks] carried two big burdens — all that money and no father to show them how to act like a man,” Karl said in the book, which is due out in January. Karl used the racially coded term “posse” to describe the friends of Smith, now a Cleveland Cavaliers shooting guard. The 86ed Sacramento Kings coach said Smith had “a huge sense of entitlement, a distracting posse, his eye always on the next contract and some really unbelievable shot selection.” Phil Jackson used the same word to describe LeBron James‘ business associates in November, drawing criticism from the Cavs’ star and others. But Karl’s biggest criticism was reserved for Anthony, whom Karl said was “a true conundrum” during his six-year tenure with the Nuggets. “He was the best offensive player I ever coached,” Karl wrote. “He was also a user of people, addicted to the spotlight and very unhappy when he had to share it. “Since Carmelo only played hard on one side of the ball, he made it plain he couldn’t lead the Nuggets, even though he said he wanted to,” Karl continued. “Coaching him meant working around his defense and compensating for his attitude.” Anthony gave a terse response to his former coach’s statements before the Knicks beat the Orlando Magic Thursday, Dec. 22. He simply told USA Today, “no way.” But Smith and Martin let their irritation show on Twitter. Martin went full Trump online, issuing a series of angry tweets. The Nerve of an AWFUL AND COWARD ASS COACH. More to come — Kenyon Martin Sr. (@KenyonMartinSr) December 22, 2016 I didn't have a father going up. We all know that. What's George Karl excuse for being a terrible person — Kenyon Martin Sr. (@KenyonMartinSr) December 22, 2016 George Karl is selfish,unhappy,missable,,cowardly person. No wonder he's be fired every place he has coached — Kenyon Martin Sr. (@KenyonMartinSr) December 22, 2016 The book he is writing is full of lies and deceit. By far the worst coach that ever played for — Kenyon Martin Sr. (@KenyonMartinSr) December 22, 2016 Meanwhile, Smith had a more straightforward response. Still trying to be relevant. Sad just sad. — JR Smith (@TheRealJRSmith) December 22, 2016 23 Dec
Protests Erupt In Texas Over Arrests of Black Women Defending Son from White Neighbor - The white police officer seen in a now-viral video arresting a mother and her two daughters in Fort Worth, Texas, has been placed on restricted duty after protests erupted in the city. Protesters picketed outside the county courthouse on Thursday, Dec. 22, demanding justice for the three, many outraged over the extreme bias the officer seemed to show during the Wednesday, Dec. 21, encounter. In the original video posted by Porsha Craver, a woman identified as Jacqueline Craig, 46, confronted a white neighbor after the man allegedly assaulted her 7-year-old son for littering near his property. The footage shows a Fort Worth police officer dismissing Craig’s claims and questioning her parenting skills, while implying the neighbor had a right to rough up the child. “My daughter and son came home, saying that this man grabbed him and choked him,” Craig says to the cop as her daughter records. ‘I came around here and asked him. I said, ‘Why did you put your hands on my son?’ He said, ‘Oh, he threw some paper and I told him to pick it up.’ He said he defied him and that’s why he did it. You don’t have the right to choke somebody’s son. My son is 7 years old. you don’t have the right to grab him and choke him.” A young woman then walked between the officer and Craig and then the camera cuts to Craig on the ground with a taser in her back. After a nearly 2-minute verbal exchange, Craig, her 19-year-old daughter Brea Hymond, who recorded the incident, and another unidentified 15-year-old daughter wearing a pink tank top were arrested. Atlanta Black Star reported Thursday that Craig and Hymond were charged with resisting arrest, interference with an investigation and failure to have ID. With the assistance of attorney Lee Merritt, Craig and her daughters were released on bond. The 15-year-old daughter was released early into the custody of another relative. Merritt told media in a news conference that he will fight to get the pending charges against his clients dismissed. He also will demand that the department fire the officer who wrongfully arrested his clients. But for now, the officer will remain on restricted duty, according to CBS This Morning. Days following the incident, reports revealed that the unnamed officer was wearing a bodycam during the encounter. However, the Fort Worth Police Department has not released the footage while an internal investigation is ongoing.23 Dec
Barbados Receives Largest Military Donation from Chinese - Barbados Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Senator Maxine McClean, and Ambassador of China to Barbados, Wang Ke (Loop Barbados)BRIDGETOWN, Barbados — Senator Maxine McClean, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, and Wang Ke, Chinese Ambassador to Barbados, signed a protocol Monday between the Barbados Defence Force and the People’s Liberation Army of China. During the signing, McClean explained that the initialization of the document followed the signing of an agreement between the Barbados Defence Force and China on March 15. Under this agreement, China will provide Barbados with military aid gratis, valued at about $3 million. “The protocol signed today serves to detail the specific equipment which the People’s Liberation Army has agreed to provide to the Barbados Defence Force,” McClean said. “It should be noted that although the Chinese government has donated military equipment to Barbados on previous occasions — military equipment which has been a tremendous benefit to the Barbados Defence Force in the execution of its duties — this is the largest such donation to date.” The senator also stressed that the agreement would continue the strong tradition of nation building, a major tenet of which is the security of Barbados and its people. “The aid is therefore of paramount importance, not only as an opportunity to assist our military but to secure our gains over the past 50 years,” she said. Read more here.23 Dec
White Christians Outraged by Black Female Portrayal of God In Octavia Spencer’s Upcoming Film - Octavia Spencer in “The Shack” (Lionsgate)White Christians are up in arms over Octavia Spencer’s portrayal of God in the upcoming movie, “The Shack,” since she doesn’t fit the image of what they claim is “the one true God.” Joe Schimmel, pastor at Blessed Hope Chapel in Simi Valley, California, not only slammed the Academy Award-winning actress’ portrayal, he ridiculed her looks for good measure. Meanwhile, James B. DeYoung, author of “Burning Down the Shack: How the ‘Christian’ Bestseller is Deceiving Millions,” sees the character as a literal threat to Christianity. Schimmel, speaking to the Christian News Network, fiercely criticized Spencer’s portrayal of the physical manifestation of God, named “Papa.” In the film, based on author William P. Young’s 2007 bestselling novel, Papa calls protagonist Mackenzie “Mack” Phillips back to the abandoned shack where his daughter was abducted and presumably killed years earlier. “Young’s pretentious caricature of God as a heavy-set, cushy, nonjudgmental, African-American woman called Papa,’ who resembles the New Agey Oprah Winfrey far more than the one true God revealed through the Lord Jesus Christ … lends itself to a dangerous and false image of God and idolatry,” Schimmel said. Schimmel, who described Spencer’s character as a “fat black woman,” also criticized the depiction of God in human form. He said it is unfortunate that Christians have created such imagery as they await the Lord’s return to Earth. “Jesus warned of a time, after His ascension, that some of His servants would conclude that He was delaying His coming and would also live wicked lives,” the pastor said. “Sadly, as we await our Lord’s return from heaven, many are guilty of fashioning images of God that they find more accommodating to their desires and chosen lifestyles and calling these gods ‘Yahweh.'” Meanwhile, DeYoung told Christian News Network the film damages the Biblical definition of the religion. “If the film is a faithful portrayal of the events and the theology of the book, then every Christian should be gravely alarmed at the further advance of beliefs that smear the evangelical understanding of the truth of the Bible,” DeYoung said. The book and film are based on universalism, which is the idea that everyone will go to heaven and any discipline is temporary. DeYoung, who is an associate of Young’s, disagrees with that view. “Tragically, these heresies are reflected in the aberrant fictional theology presented in ‘The Shack,'” DeYoung said. “These are not mere trivial matters but strike at the very heart of God’s character and the Gospel that saves our eternal souls.” “The Shack” opens in theaters nationwide March 3, 2017. 23 Dec

BioPortfolio Cancer News

How cells destroy damaged organelles with links to cancer neurodegenerative diseases and aging - Researchers at UTÂSouthwestern Medical Center have uncovered the mechanism that cells use to find and destroy an organelle called mitochondria that when damaged may lead to genetic problems cancer neurodegenerative diseases inflammatory disease and aging. ...41 min
U.K. Genetic Diseases Cancer Forensic and Paternity Molecular Diagnostic Testing Markets Country Forecasts Emerging Technologies Competitive Landscape Prices from USD $1850 - Complete report $1850. nbsp;DataPack test volumes sales forecasts supplier shares $1200. nbsp;The report is available by section market segment and can be customtailored to your specific information needs and budget.This new study from VPGMarketResearchnbs...12:26
20162020 Lithuania Cancer Diagnostics Market Emerging Cancer Diagnostics Oncogenes Biochemical Markers Lymphokines GFs CSFs Hormones Immunohistochemical StainsTest Volume and Sales Forecasts Competitive Strategies Opportunities for Suppliers Pri - This new report from VPG Market Research provides a strategic analysis of the major business opportunities emerging in the cancer diagnostics market during the next five years. The report examines emerging trends in the cancer diagnostics market; reviews c...11:57
Terminally ill sixyearold raises two million euros for charity with nailpainting challenge The Independent - The IndependentTerminally ill sixyearold raises two million euros for charity with nailpainting challengeThe IndependentA terminally ill sixyearold has raised more than 2.5 million Euros &163;2.1m for charity by daring people in the Netherlands to pain...08:13
20162020 Hungary Cancer Diagnostics Market Emerging Cancer Diagnostics Oncogenes Biochemical Markers Lymphokines GFs CSFs Hormones Immunohistochemical StainsTest Volume and Sales Forecasts Competitive Strategies Opportunities for Suppliers Price - This new report from VPG Market Research provides a strategic analysis of the major business opportunities emerging in the cancer diagnostics market during the next five years. The report examines emerging trends in the cancer diagnostics market; reviews c...06:54
2016 Czech Republic Cancer Diagnostics Market Emerging Cancer Diagnostics Oncogenes Biochemical Markers Lymphokines GFs CSFs Hormones Immunohistochemical StainsTest Volume and Sales Forecasts Competitive Strategies Opportunities for Suppliers Pr - This new report from VPG Market Research provides a strategic analysis of the major business opportunities emerging in the cancer diagnostics market during the next five years. The report examines emerging trends in the cancer diagnostics market; reviews c...06:23
ARMO BioSciences' immunotherapy AM0010 gets European orphan drug status for pancreatic cancer treatment - ARMO BioSciences Inc. a clinicalstage immunooncology company announced that the European Commission EC has granted the company's lead investigational immunooncology drug AM0010 PEGylated Interleukin10 Orphan designation for the treatment of pancreatic canc...06:00
Salivary Gland Cancer Global Clinical Trials Review H2 2016 Prices from USD $2500 - Salivary Gland Cancer Global Clinical Trials Review H2 2016SummaryGlobalData's clinical trial report Salivary Gland Cancer Global Clinical Trials Review H2 2016" provides an overview of Salivary Gland Cancer clinical trials scenario. This report provi...04:02
Italy Tumor Marker Testing Market Sales Forecasts By Market Segment and Supplier Shares by Test Prices from USD $650 - This report provides an overview of the Italian cancer diagnostics market including market shares of leading suppliers by test as well as volume and sales forecasts by market segment.Table of ContentsBusiness EnvironmentMarket StructureMarket Size Growth a...01:06
Italy Diagnostics Market Blood Banking Cancer Coagulation Clinical Chemistry Flow Cytometry Hematology Immunodiagnostics Infectious Diseases Microbiology Molecular DiagnosticsSupplier Shares Competitive Strategies Test Volume and Sales Segment - This new report from VPG Market Research provides an overview of the Italian diagnostic testing market including sales and market shares of leading reagent and instrument suppliers as well as test volume and sales forecasts for the following market segment...00:08
InventHelp Client&39;s Accessory Allows For Dignified Use of Ostomy Bags SDB972 - PITTSBURGH PA PRWEB December 24 2016 A personal need inspired one of two inventors from Oceanside Calif. design a new accessory for ostomy patients. "My husband had bladder cancer...24 Dec

Booman Tribune

We Must Have Trump, Because Colonialism - Let’s think about this: “Liberals say Mr. Trump’s victory is proof that the Electoral College is biased against big states and undemocratically marginalizes urban and nonwhite voters. Conservatives say the Electoral College serves as a necessary bulwark against big states, preventing California in particular from imposing ‘something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation,’ as the conservative analyst Michael Barone put it. California sided with Mrs. Clinton by a vote margin of four million, or 30 percentage points.” “Both sides have a point. But in the end, Mr. Trump won for a simple reason: The Electoral College’s (largely) winner-take-all design gives a lot of weight to battleground states. Mr. Trump had an advantage in the traditional battlegrounds because most are whiter and less educated than the country as a whole.” We can reconfigure this argument just a little and state it differently. For Michael Barone, it’s desirable that less educated people not be imposed upon with the “colonialism” of more educated people. If you don’t like that, you can say, instead, that white people, particularly white people with below-average education, should not be governed by a diverse group of better-educated people. The first of these arguments would be familiar to the architects of the British Empire who fancied that they were bringing religion, commerce, and civilization to the savages and didn’t quite get why this might not always be welcomed. There was a little matter of self-determination to consider, and people differ on matters of theology, so it’s a little arrogant to think a nation like India, with millions of Muslims and Hindus will see the superiority of the Cross. The more progressive view was that the British didn’t have the answer for everything and that imperialism could easily slip into a tyrannical and exploitative system where indigenous cultures were disrespected or unjustifiably stamped out. I don’t typically think of the people, e.g., of the Ohio River Valley the same way that I think about Indians suffering under British rule, primarily because we’re all supposed to be part of the same culture and polity. But the resistance we see to progressive values and dictates from Washington DC (“I can’t drive 55”) does share some common features with anti-colonialism. The second argument is a little less compelling. It basically argues in favor white people being treated as a protected interest group that ought to be able to govern itself, somewhat akin to our Indian Reservation system. But it goes further in that it says that this protected interest group should actually get to govern all of us, including the better educated, more diverse, and more numerous group. The former argument is more advisory. It’s a warning to progressives that there’s natural backlash to trying to impose their version of reality on areas of the country that won’t accept it. It can help them understand why they’re losing political support (and elections) in so many communities around the country. It also is an argument in favor of at least some level of tolerance for political and cultural differences, and a reminder that our system of federalism accounts for this. But the latter argument isn’t at all supportable, in my view. It’s one thing to recognize that self-determination is a principle that can operate within our borders (to some degree), but it is another to suggest that a minority of people should govern the rest of us (for whatever reasons). You can call this white privilege, but it’s not quite that. It’s privilege for a minority of white voters who just happen to be less educated than the coalition of people who oppose them. There are millions of white voters who enjoy and support living in a pluralistic country, and they’re part of a numerically superior coalition of voters that turned out to support Barack Obama twice and to support Hillary Clinton. You can apply the principle of one person, one vote, even though it doesn’t apply in our system both due to the makeup of the Senate (two votes per state irrespective of population) and the Electoral College. You can apply a more elitist standard that only better educated people should decide who will govern us. This was also part of the thinking of the Framers, both in terms of who they initially allowed to vote and how they envisioned the Electoral College working. But it’s hard to see any justification for privileging a less educated minority of voters because it would be “colonialism” to allow their political opponents to have power. Discuss 11:15
Trump, Austrian Neo-Nazis, and Putin - In the process of pointing out that their flirtations with John Birchers and other general “rightwing nutballish” behaviors are quickly turning the Trump administration “into the grease trap of American political history,” Charles Pierce stops to notice that incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is still in league with the Russkies. To wit, the lunatic far-right Austrian Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache traveled to New York in November to meet with Flynn. The Freedom Party presidential nominee, Norbert Hofer, just came within a whisper of winning an revanchist Anschlussian political victory in the early December election. He had hoped to do better, saying just prior to the vote that he was drawing “encouragement from Donald Trump’s presidential victory in the United States.” So, Strache, Hofer, Flynn and Trump are best buddies, it seems, and now Strache and Hofer have decided to balm their political wounds by sidling up to the Kremlin: Heinz-Christian Strache, Freedom Party leader, and Norbert Hofer, the candidate who narrowly lost Austria’s presidential election earlier this month, signed a “working agreement” on Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia Party, according to a statement from the Freedom Party. Pierce’s response is laconic: At the risk of being called a neo-McCarthyite, may I point out that this smacks an awful lot of the incoming administration’s involvement in a worldwide right-wing movement at the center of which is our good friend Vladimir Putin. Of course, this is impossible because liberals who lived through the Cold War keep telling me that all this Russia-bashing is just so much Dulles Brothers flimflam designed to distract the plebes from their rightful destiny at the head of the dictatorship of the proletariat. To bash Russia is to bash the left here at home in order to crush the left everywhere from Ho Chi Minh City to Buenos Aires. It therefore cannot be that our president is in the thrall, if not the control, of a “worldwide right-wing movement” to restore the purity of essence to the European bloodstream and bring Christianity back to its former central and crusading glory. Or, in other words, you need to check that “grease trap of American political history” carefully, because a few of the roles have been reversed. Discuss 11:15
No Family Tensions Here - Lemme see: The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds 48% of Americans said a family member shared with them a false story that they believed to be true; 32% said they avoided talking politics with family because they supported a different candidate; 31% said they got into a heated argument with family or friends for supporting a different candidate; 22% reported being harassed for their political beliefs; and 17% said they blocked or unfriended someone on Facebook or another social-media platform because of the presidential election. Maybe it’s because I come from a family of academics and the children of academics, but I am unaware of even one family member, including uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews and nieces, who supported Trump, so there were no annoying fake news stories or arguments or avoidance of political conversations. No one harassed anyone, and no one was blocked on social media. I didn’t have to do this with any friends, either, although things got tense in the primaries. They only thing I did was block a few people on Facebook who struck me as idiots and to stop following a few people on Twitter who were annoying me. None of these people were my friends, though. I try not to be too insulated, but the truth is that politics is central enough to my being that I don’t make friends with Republicans. With where I grew up, even my old high school friends and acquaintances are about 99% liberal, especially when given a choice of Trump. To tell you the truth, I am happier this way. I don’t need a crazy uncle to keep me grounded. But it does make it more of a challenge to keep my finger on the pulse of Red America, especially because I absolutely refuse to watch Fox News or listen to hate radio. How has your experience been? Discuss 11:15
Casual Observation - This concerns me. Discuss 11:15
Happy Festivus! - Time to wrestle your father. Discuss 11:15
Merry Christmas!! - As in my tradition. I'm going to go see the Star Wars movie. Discuss 09:15
Will Trump’s OMB Director Blow Up the World? - Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post is worried that Mick Mulvaney will blow up the global economy by destroying the creditworthiness of the United States’ debt. It’s not an unreasonable concern considering that Mulvaney has been nominated to serve as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a position which is responsible for preparing the president’s budget proposal to Congress. Mulvaney is most famous as a congressman for being a debt ceiling truther. That is, he joined irresponsible nutcases like Paul Ryan in arguing that the United States government could fail to make debt payments on time without defaulting on its debt or causing a downgrade in our nation’s credit rating. Here’s how Ryan, who was then serving as the House Budget Committee chairman, put it in June 2011: “If a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four — what is more important is you are putting the government in a materially better position to better pay its bills going forward.” In early August 2011, Standard & Poor’s downgraded our credit rating simply because we had come so close to defaulting. Here’s what Mulvaney said in October 2013: “We’re not going to default; there is no default. There’s an [Office of Management and Budget] directive from the 1980s, the last time we got fairly close to not raising the debt ceiling, that clearly lays out the process by which the Treasury secretary prioritizes interest payments.” Days later, Fitch Ratings issued a warning that “it could cut the sovereign credit rating of the United States from AAA, citing the political brinkmanship over raising the federal debt ceiling” and “Dagong Global Credit Rating downgraded the United States from A to A-, and maintained a negative outlook on the country’s credit.” Since entering Congress, Mulvaney has never voted to raise the debt ceiling and has opposed all budget deals crafted to avoid default. He has consistently argued that that we can prioritize interest payments without doing damage to our credit or blowing up the global economy. As Rampell notes, Mulvaney is out of his mind. And Trump is insane on this issue, too. …Mulvaney and the president-elect have at least one major thing in common: an alarming openness to defaulting on the federal debt. “I would borrow knowing that if the economy crashed you could make a deal,” [Trump] said. When the financial press freaked out, he walked back the language — only to revive it a month later. Mulvaney has also questioned the need to preserve the country’s sterling reputation as a borrower. I encourage you to peruse the historical list of directors of the OMB. Pay special attention to the Republicans who have served in the position, because they definitely tend toward the less nutty and more reality-based variety of conservative. You’ll see names like Josh Bolten, who later became President George W. Bush’s chief of staff, Mitch Daniels, who went on to serve two terms as governor of Indiana, and Rob Portman, who currently serves in the U.S. Senate. The most notorious name on the list is David Stockman, the main defender of Ronald Reagan’s delusion trickle-down supply-side theory of budgetary economics. Here’s a reminder of how Stockman worked out in the job. Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan’s tax act in these terms: “I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan’s 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate…. It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down.’ So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.” Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Stockman was quoted as saying, “None of us really understands what’s going on with all these numbers.” …Stockman became concerned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he resigned from OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to endorse a reduction of government spending to offset large tax decreases to avoid the creation of large deficits and an increasing national debt. As Rampell mentions, while Trump and Mulvaney may both demonstrate an alarming willingness to stiff our creditors, they differ about the advisability of deficit spending. This puts him in Stockman’s role vis-a-vis Reagan, where agreement over tax decreases and the resulting revenue loss is not matched with a commitment to cut spending. Stockman blamed Congress rather than Reagan (or his own ridiculous theory), and Mulvaney would surely do the same. The results, however would be the same: exploding debts and a need to repeatedly raise the debt ceiling. To refresh your memory there were “18 increases to the debt ceiling between February 1981 and September 1987.” There’s simply nothing in Mulvaney’s record to indicate that he’d countenance the timely raising of the debt ceiling, let alone having to do it eighteen times in a six and a half year span. Rampell offers one slim reed of hope: Our best bet is that the two Goldman Sachs alumni taking White House roles (including Treasury secretary, the post directly responsible for managing the public debt) can explain to Trump why these kinds of actions would blow up the world. Let’s just hope they’re the ones he listens to when the time comes. So, we’re hoping the Goldman Sachs guys will save us. Feel better? [We have begun our annual holiday fundraising drive here at the Washington Monthly. If you value a place where facts still matter and independent journalism is an operating principle, please consider making a tax deductible contribution today. Thank you!] Discuss 24 Dec
Dem Senators Playing Footsie With Trump - Here’s an interesting theory. Did Democratic senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota disingenuously encourage speculation that they might join the Trump administration in order to win points with their constituents? With West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin getting passed over for job in the Trump administration, Democrats are now waiting to see whether North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp also stays in the Senate. According to the New York Times, Republican leaders have been pushing Trump to tap a Democratic senator for his cabinet, but he hasn’t played along, picking former Texas Gov. Rick Perry over both Manchin and Heitkamp to head the Department of Energy. Heitkamp is still reportedly under consideration for agriculture secretary, but former North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan says Heitkamp has “indicated she will not join” Trumpworld, in the words of the Times. In fact, unnamed Republicans are now fretting that Heitkamp and Manchin have never had any intention of abandoning the Democrats and have just been playing Trump to earn positive headlines back home. This is, of course, the kind of game politicians have played since the dawn of time, but it just feels unaccountably gross when Trump’s involved. We’ll have to see if anyone cares either way in two years’ time. Now, Manchin was awarded a position in the Senate Democrat leadership team, as well as a seat on the Appropriations and Intelligence committees. I’m having trouble finding what committee assignments Heitkamp received. Both of them are going to have a hell of a time getting reelected based on the drift of the states they represent, but a lot will depend on whether the people of West Virginia and North Dakota are happy with the Trump administration in two years. Could be that having played footsie with Trump doesn’t look like much of a positive in November 2018, even in dirty energy-producing Trump strongholds of the country. Discuss 24 Dec
Racializing the Electoral College Debate - Last night, Bill O’Reilly gave a little speech on his Fox News program The O’Reilly Factor in which he explained his theory of why people on the left want to do away with the Electoral College. Since it hits on several themes I’ve been focusing on, I am going to quote his remarks in full. BILL O’REILLY: Abolishing the Electoral College, that is the subject of tonight’s Talking Points Memo. After Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the left in America is demanding that the Electoral College system put into place in 1787 be scrapped. But there’s a hidden reason for this. As we reported, even though Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million, the progressive state of California provided all of that margin. Clinton defeating Trump there by about 4.3 million votes. So if the Electoral College were abolished, presidential candidates could simply campaign in the nation’s largest states and cities,New York, L.A., Chicago, Houston, and rack up enough votes to pretty much win any election. That’s what the left wants. That’s what they want. Because in the large urban areas and blue states like New York and California, minorities are substantial. Look at the landscape. Philadelphia, Dallas-Fort Worth, Miami. In all of these places the minority vote usually goes heavily to the Democrats. And to that New York City, L.A., Chicago, San Francisco, don’t really have a national election anymore, do you? You have targeted populations. Newspapers like the New York Times and the L.A. Times have editorialized to get rid of the Electoral Cllege. They well know that neutralizing the largely white rural areas in the Midwest and South will assure liberal politicians get power and keep it. Talking Points believes this is all about race. The left sees white privilege in America as an oppressive force that must be done away with. Therefore white working class voters must be marginalized and what better way to do that than center the voting power in the cities. Very few commentators will tell you that the heart of liberalism in America today is based on race. It permeates almost every issue. That white men have set up a system of oppression. That system must be destroyed. Bernie Sanders pedaled that to some extent Hillary Clinton did. And the liberal media tries to sell that all day long. So-called white privilege bad. Diversity good. If you look at the voting patterns, it’s clear that the Democrats are heavily reliant on the minority vote. Also on the woman vote. White men have largely abandoned the Democrats and the left believes it’s because of racism that they want to punish minorities, keep them down. So that’s what’s really going on when you hear about the Electoral College and how unfair it allegedly is. Summing up, the left wants power taken away from the white establishment. They want a profound change in the way America is run. Taking voting power away from the white precincts is the quickest way to do that. I’ll begin my response where O’Reilly began. It’s true that California provided the entirety of Hillary Clinton’s margin of popular vote victory (and then some), and it’s true that one positive feature of the Electoral College system is that it forces the candidates to campaign in battleground states where they have an opportunity to see a variety of microcultures and discrete political concerns. Something would be lost if we had one nationwide popular vote, and it would put more emphasis on campaigning in the biggest population centers. On the other hand, the majority of our states get very little attention in our current system because it’s a foregone conclusion how they will vote. A Republican isn’t going to spend much time campaigning around Boston and a Democrat will probably ignore New Orleans. Another advantage to the Electoral College (and, I think, its best feature) was identified by George Will in his column last week: Those who demand direct popular election of the president should be advised that this is what we have — in 51 jurisdictions (the states and the District). And the electoral vote system quarantines electoral disputes. Imagine the 1960 election under direct popular election: John F. Kennedy’s popular vote margin over Richard M. Nixon was just 118,574. If all 68,838,219 popular votes had been poured into a single national bucket, there would have been powerful incentives to challenge the results in many of the nation’s 170,000 precincts. Honestly, though, the left isn’t objecting to the Electoral College because they’re opposed to retail politics or indifferent to the advantages of quarantining vote-counting disputes. They’re upset because the system disadvantages them. So, the real debate should be over whether there are reasons why the left should have to compete with fifty pound weights strapped to their legs. O’Reilly says that the left’s belief is that by “neutralizing the largely white rural areas in the Midwest and South” they can get power. I guess that’s true in a certain sense, but the word “neutralizing” is instructive in this case. If by neutral, we mean that white rural votes should have the same weight as all other votes, then all we’re doing is evening the playing field. Of course, “neutralizing” can also mean to “kill” or just to remove a threat. O’Reilly uses racially charged incendiary language on purpose, but the only thing the left wants to kill is the unfair advantage that makes the opinion of a white rancher in Wyoming several times more influential than the opinion of a Latino city worker in Los Angeles: Although Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767, it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1. Now, when O’Reilly says that the left believes “that white men have set up a system of oppression” and that “that system must be destroyed,” he’s tribalizing the debate over the merits of the Electoral College and telling his white audience that racial minorities in the cities want to annihilate them in retaliation for their oppression. On the one hand, we do have a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, and our legal system still demonstrates vast disparities in treatment and outcomes based on race. But the only oppression we need to concern ourselves with here is the oppression that comes with fighting to win election where your opponent can win even when they get nearly three million fewer votes. The left would simply like to win elections in which they get the most votes. It’s not any more complicated than that. O’Reilly sneers when he says “So-called white privilege bad; diversity good,” but the only privilege that’s directly relevant to the Electoral College is the privilege of having your vote count for more than the votes of your opponents. I want to look at O’Reilly’s conclusion one more time before I conclude. White men have largely abandoned the Democrats and the left believes it’s because of racism that they want to punish minorities, keep them down. So that’s what’s really going on when you hear about the Electoral College and how unfair it allegedly is. Summing up, the left wants power taken away from the white establishment. They want a profound change in the way America is run. Taking voting power away from the white precincts is the quickest way to do that. O’Reilly starts by strongly suggesting that the left (in his view, synonymous with minorities) is wrong to believe that the system is designed by the white establishment to keep them down, but then immediately complains that the left wants to take an unfair advantage away from white precincts. I know you are not surprised that Bill O’Reilly and Fox News are using their airwaves to tell white people that darkies are coming to get them and change how things are run and take away their privileges and exact revenge on them for the sins of oppression. I know you are not surprised that, even as they do this, they accuse the left of being the ones who make “everything about race.” What’s clear from O’Reilly’s rant, however, is that he sees the Electoral College as a bulwark of white privilege and justifiable oppression. And that’s precisely why he likes it and wants to protect it. Over here on the left, though, there’s an actual debate about the pros and cons of the Electoral College, and it’s not all about race. It’s about whether or not we should elect our president the same way we elect our governors and senators and congresspeople and the leaders of our unincorporated hamlets. I’d like to have that debate, but whether you’re a liberal or a conservative, if you’re a thinking person you know that any system that comes up with Donald Trump as the answer is suffering from fatal flaws in its code. Discuss 24 Dec
Will Progressives Defend Our Elections? - There’s a tendency of the left to object to any objection to Russia’s role in promoting Donald Trump as our next president by pointing out that the United States is hardly guiltless when it comes to trying to influence foreign elections. I don’t mind people pointing this out, since it’s true, but it does rankle me that this is used as some kind of defense of Russia’s actions. If you want to talk about American meddling in foreign elections, you should start at the beginning of the modern era. The first real job the CIA undertook was an all-hands-on-deck effort to deny the communists a victory in the Italian elections of 1948. This was when the CIA forged its deep ties to the Vatican, which would become important as the Cold War unfolded in Latin America. It’s not easy to unpack how the U.S government, the Vatican, the CIA and KGB, and the mainstream left interacted in Latin America during the Cold War. All of these institutions evolved or changed course under new leadership during the decades of the conflict. What remained fairly consistent was that the U.S. sought to undermine left-wing populism in the region on the theory that it tended toward economic extremism and was always at risk of communist domination. The Vatican vacillated, at times supporting liberation theology and at other times colluding with Washington in tamping it down. Later on, the U.S. took a different approach, founding the The National Endowment for Democracy in 1983. That organization was in the news the last time a foreign power was accused of interfering in an American election. In March 1997, John Broder wrote a piece for the New York Times that expressed the typical liberal aversion to defending our country’s elections because our own hands are dirty. Members of both political parties express horror at accusations that the Chinese may have tried to use covert campaign donations to influence American policy, but the United States has long meddled in other nations’ internal affairs. At issue then was the appearance that China had preferentially funneled money to the Democrats during the 1996 election. This was supposedly fair game. Congress routinely appropriates tens of millions of dollars in covert and overt money to use in influencing domestic politics abroad. The National Endowment for Democracy, created 15 years ago to do in the open what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades, spends $30 million a year to support things like political parties, labor unions, dissident movements and the news media in dozens of countries, including China. The endowment has financed unions in France, Paraguay, the Philippines and Panama. In the mid-1980’s, it provided $5 million to Polish emigres to keep the Solidarity movement alive. It has underwritten moderate political parties in Portugal, Costa Rica, Bolivia and Northern Ireland. It provided a $400,000 grant for political groups in Czechoslovakia that backed the election of Vaclav Havel as president in 1990. For the Nicaraguan election of 1990, it provided more than $3 million in ”technical” assistance, some of which was used to bolster Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, the presidential candidate favored by the United States. And, of course, this was the polite stuff. There was also the nasty stuff. Since the end of World War II, the United States, usually acting covertly through the C.I.A., has installed or toppled leaders on every continent, secretly supported political parties of close allies like Japan, fomented coups, spread false rumors, bribed political figures and spent countless billions of dollars to sway public opinion. ”If the Chinese indeed tried to influence the election here last year, the United States is only getting a taste of its own medicine,” said Peter Kornbluh, a researcher at the National Security Archive, an organization affiliated with George Washington University that monitors intelligence and foreign policy. ”China has done little more than emulate a long pattern of U.S. manipulation, bribery and covert operations to influence the political trajectory of countless countries around the world,” Mr. Kornbluh said. I don’t really know what this is. I guess it’s the application of some karmic theory that what goes around comes around, or that the chickens always come home to roost. But it’s weak-kneed and politically unattractive. When progressives adopt this position, that Donald Trump is only what we deserve, that our Democratic headquarters can be bugged by the Kremlin but not by G. Gordon Liddy, that our country can be decimated by Russia because it’s fair turnabout, then it’s no wonder people don’t trust us to protect this country’s sovereignty or its people. This is what happens when a political movement adopts a completely countercultural, anti-government stance. It can no longer defend our institutions because it has become convinced that they are rotten to the core. Unless you can craft me a theory under which the contemporary left in this country should be kept out of power and a dangerous narcissistic buffoon should have the nuclear codes instead, then I don’t give a damn about what our country has done or is doing in foreign elections, and I am going to object loudly to Russia’s role in undermining our candidate for the presidency. And if you think American politicians of either party should have their emails divulged by Russians because that’s exactly what they have coming, then don’t expect anyone to vote for you. The progressive movement that I respect was opposed to what our government was doing to tamp down left-wing populism during the Cold War, and it was opposed to the way our government empowered and apologized for white supremacists in South Africa and right-wing dictators in Chile and Argentina. It saw these things as wrong both politically and because it violated principles of self-determination. But it never concluded that we should allow foreign powers to intervene in our own elections because of some kind of goose/gander abdication of national pride and responsibility. Nor did it conclude that it’s own power and legitimacy should be sacrificed on that altar. I would not vote for anyone, no matter how progressive, who refused to defend the integrity of our elections and to punish those who intervened in them. And very few voters will disagree with me. At least when Ron Paul makes the karmic argument, he does so more to argue that we should stop interfering so much in others’ sovereignty rather than justifying it when it is done to us. If the left has any intention of fighting for the things they claim to believe in, they will need to get over this predilection to rationalize their own ratf*cking on some ridiculous theory that policies they largely opposed somehow justify it. Discuss 24 Dec

Balkinization

Are the "Culture Wars" Over? - Richard Schragger, Micah Schwartzman, and Nelson TebbeWe are less sanguine than Mark Tushnet that the "culture wars" are over and progressives have won, as we argue in a recent piece in Vox. Certainly, Mark is right that there has been a decided cultural shift in the U.S. regarding same-sex marriage. But this achievement is politically contingent. Depending on the time horizon, LGBT rights may still be in play, as are reproductive rights, religious accommodations, and the scope of religious disestablishment.Consider the long term first. Mark acknowledges that if Trump has the opportunity to make two (or more) appointments to the Supreme Court, affirmative action and reproductive rights could be on the table. But the same could be said for same-sex marriage—there’s no guarantee that Obergefell would survive a Trump Court. In fact, many other aspects of the so-called “culture wars” could be unsettled if that happens: Employment Division v. Smith and school prayer, for starters. Now maybe Mark is right that political support for same-sex marriage and other rights is sufficient to ensure that any such legal reversals are temporary. But we are less confident about making predictions that stretch that far into the political future.A Trump Court would also uphold the legislative changes that are coming in the near term—and we are sure to see a continuation of “culture war” conflict around these laws. The religious freedom legislation being contemplated by this Congress implicates basic civil rights. Most immediately, Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have pledged to reintroduce the First Amendment Defense Act. Read broadly—and some sympathetic courts will read it broadly, especially after President Trump has made further appointments to them—the legislation would permit religious organizations, including for-profit companies, to discriminate in myriad ways. A radical version of FADA has already been enacted in Mississippi. Mark’s prediction that FADAs will face legal challenges has proven correct in that case—a federal trial court struck down the Mississippi FADA in Barber v. Bryant. Yet that decision is now on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, where it is far from certain to be affirmed. Beyond FADA, moreover, the Russell Amendment will likely return, as we point out in our Vox piece. Even without two appointments, the federal FADA may well be upheld. Consider that conservatives have won all of the major church-state decisions in the last decade, outside same-sex marriage: Hosanna-Tabor, Hobby-Lobby, Town of Greece—and before that, ACSTO v. Winn and Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, which both significantly restricted standing to raise Establishment Clause challenges. (Holt v. Hobbs and O Centrowere not politically charged, because they protected members of  religious minorities and did not involve harms to third parties.) In these cases, the Court expanded free exercise or narrowed disestablishment, including by closing down avenues for objecting to state funding of the religious mission.Even if all the achievements of the LGBT and women’s equality movements remain in place, moreover, there are significant opportunity costs. Remember that LGBT persons are still not explicitly protected under federal civil rights laws concerning employment, housing, or public accommodations. How long will Americans have to wait for those kinds of basic guarantees? If the culture wars were over and progressives had won, we would expect a quick resolution of that unfinished business. Instead, civil rights law will move in the opposite direction—the EEOC’s interpretation of existing laws to protect LGBT people will be quickly reversed, presumably, as will President Obama’s 2014 Executive Order protecting LGBT workers against employment discrimination by federal contractors. We could add many more examples of expected reversals on civil rights questions.Mark may be reading the cultural mood of the country correctly, at least in the long term—though Trump's election illustrates the contingency of all aspects of the progressive project. From our perspective, it looks like Americans will be battling the “culture wars” for some time to come. In the short term, and in the long term if the Court’s composition changes dramatically, America could look more like the religious nation that some of Trump’s advisors and supporters envision. 23 Dec
Doubling Down (on "The Culture Wars Are Over") - One feature of the hate mail I've received (as well as the modestly more respectable responses) to my post on abandoning defensive crouch liberalism is gloating about the implications of the election's result. (Another feature is a systematic misreading of the post as advice to liberal judges rather than to liberal academics -- a misreading that does not give one a great deal of confidence in those who assert that they are interested in interpreting the Constitution's text as written; if they can't read a blog post's text accurately, why should we think that they can read the Constitution's text accurately?) This article, in which I'm quoted, examines the current state of the discussion reasonably dispassionately, I think. So, now I'm going to double down on the point that clearly was most annoying -- the claim that the culture wars are over, and that liberals won.The most obvious place to begin is with gay marriage. No one -- and I mean literally no one -- who has responded to the post claims (nor, I believe, thinks) that there's any chance whatsoever that gay marriage is going to go away. This is not a throwaway or an incidental point -- the very thing that the gay rights movement worked for, for decades, is now simply off the table, with a victory for our side. Next, multicultural education. That's not going away either, and again I doubt that anyone thinks that it is, aside from some tinkering around the edges.Third, transgender rights. Here the main point is that this is where the fight is occurring. Who would have imagined even a decade ago that there would be a major battle -- which, for the moment, we're winning -- over the right of transgender young people to use a specific school bathroom? We haven't won this battle yet, and might not do so in the next year or two, but the fight (to continue the military metaphor) is occurring deep within "their" territory.Fourth, gay rights more generally. Here's where most of the gloating appears to be occurring. But, notably, it's of an extremely limited sort. Again, no one appears to be contending that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against the LGBTQ community generally, for example simply because the owners think that the behavior they think associated with members of that community is simply "icky." Indeed, a lot of the pushback to my claim includes what now seem to be standard disclaimers that the responders "of course" oppose discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Again, consider how far that shows our side has moved into their territory.But, what about accommodations for those with religious objections to providing business services to members of that community? Here everything turns on details, which the gloaters seem to ignore. From the outset I thought -- and wrote, but of course no one paid attention to it -- that we were likely to end up with a limited form of accommodation. I thought that it would be for relatively small owner-operated businesses whose owners had religious objections to providing what I'd describe loosely as "expressive-related" services. And I still think that's where we're going to end up, though there will be variations in the details -- size, what counts as an "expressive-related" service, and the like. For me, this sort of accommodation was itself an indication of the "we won" position.What about broader statutory accommodations, which would make religion-based objections the grounds for more general discriminatory policies? Does anyone think that a statute allowing Chick-Fil-A to refuse service to members of the LGBTQ community because (were it true) the company's owners had a religious objection to selling them sandwiches would have any chance of being enacted? I don't. Yet, that's what some proposed statutes would allow. I have in mind the federal "First Amendment Defense Act" (which Doug Laycock appears to believe goes too far -- and which, even so, is a quite indirect protection of the asserted First Amendment rights) and state analogues. Here I have several predictions: (a) The federal statute is quite unlikely to be enacted, though it might be. (b) If it is, and if similar state statutes are enacted, they will be given extremely narrow interpretations. (c) Alternatively, if they are enacted, they will be held unconstitutional precisely because of their breadth. There is some evidence supporting these predictions, in the political difficulties encountered when broad statutes in Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona were proposed and/or enacted. Finally, affirmative action and abortion. Here my point is much more contingent: Until Anthony Kennedy leaves the Court, or Trump gets to make two nominations to the Court, nothing's going to happen to change the current state of the law. The Court decided Fisher and Whole Woman's Health last year precisely because (I assume -- I have no inside information) its members knew that simply replacing Justice Scalia wasn't going to alter the results. And, exactly for that reason, the political fight over the second appointment -- if it happens -- is going to be much more contentious than anything we've seen so far, which is saying something. Here are some additional military metaphors. The gloaters are like Robert E. Lee preparing for the the battle at Gettysburg -- they expect to win, of course, but they're going to be surprised (I think). And of course there are going to be continued skirmishes -- like guerilla warfare after Appomattox -- some of which we might lose. But, taking everything into account: The culture wars are over, and we won.20 Dec
What Should Presidential Electors Do? Negotiate. - Robert Yablon            With the Electoral College set to vote in just a few days, the debate over the role of Presidential Electors has reached a fever pitch.  Should this year’s Electors follow longstanding norms and rubberstamp their state’s popular vote winner, or should they buck tradition and dump Trump?  Missing from these discussions is an alternative that seems tailor-made for the age of Trump.  Perhaps Electors should do what Trump himself would likely do in their shoes: negotiate.Encouraging Electors to negotiate with a would-be President may be a way to reconcile, at least in part, our competing instincts about the Electoral College’s function.  Negotiations are an option because, as the dump Trump contingent correctly observes, the Constitution does not require Electors to ratify state popular vote outcomes.  Constitutionally speaking, Electors are free agents.              But do we really want Electors to exercise their constitutional prerogative and disregard the will of their state’s voters?  Some have suggested that Hillary Clinton’s national popular vote win gives Electors license to discount the state-by-state results.  But this amounts to a request to change the rules after the game has been played.  For better or worse, everyone knew going in that the election would turn on winning enough votes in the right places, not on tallying the most votes overall.Others have argued that Electors should exercise their constitutional prerogative this year because Trump is, in their view, unfit for office.  The Framers, they say, designed the Electoral College as a safety valve and left Electors free to vote their conscience precisely to ensure that the presidency does not fall into the hands of a demagogue.  At least one Republican Elector has taken this position and announced his intention to vote for someone else.Even if the Framers envisioned the Electors as guardians against tyranny (a debatable point), we probably cannot and should not rely on Electors to play this role.  On one hand, most Electors will be reluctant to defy their state’s voters, either because they genuinely support the winner, or because they fear the backlash that defiance could bring.  On the other hand, galvanizing Electors to follow their own personal compasses might well set a precedent we would come to regret.  (Imagine the outcry if Hillary Clinton had presumptively won the Electoral College only to be thwarted by a band of rogue Electors who viewed her email travails as disqualifying.)  Moreover, even if some Electors are open to alternative candidates, they face the collective action problems that Jack described in his post last night.Electors, however, can be faithful to their state’s voters without forsaking their constitutional prerogative entirely.  The real value of that prerogative is to give Electors leverage—a point that Trump of all people should appreciate.  As he put it in The Art of the Deal, leverage means “having something the other guy wants.  Or better yet, needs.  Or best of all, simply can’t do without.”  For aspiring Presidents, electoral votes are indispensible.  If Trump, the consummate dealmaker, were an Elector, would he simply hand his vote to his state’s popular vote winner without seeking anything in return?  Unlikely.            To be clear, Electors emphatically should not seek to exchange their votes for personal gain.  Such conduct would almost certainly expose them to legal liability and would be a grave betrayal of the public’s trust.            Instead, the idea is for Electors to negotiate as agents of their state’s voters, mindful of the electorate’s will.  They should expect to support their state’s winning candidate.  But they also should consider seeking actions or commitments from that candidate on behalf of the voters they represent.  Electors could pursue such deals individually, or, to increase their clout, they could coordinate within or across states.  If the candidate refuses their overtures, Electors would then have cause to withhold their votes or back someone else, ideally someone broadly acceptable to the voters who supported the state’s popular vote winner.            The case for Electors as negotiators is especially strong in an election as unconventional as this one.  Trump was a norm-shattering candidate.  His words and deeds troubled even many of those who ultimately voted for him.  He attracted support with grandiose promises, but his penchant for puffery, doublespeak, and finger pointing has left many to wonder about his sincerity and true intentions.  Information that has emerged since the election has amplified these uncertainties.   Electors are uniquely situated to press Trump to address ongoing concerns about his conduct, to demand greater clarity about his plans, and to hold him to his promises.            What specifically could Electors seek from Trump?  They would have to assess the sentiments of their state’s electorate and make their own judgments.  But consider three illustrative possibilities.  (Bear in mind that the Electors with the real leverage hale from states that Trump won, so they are unlikely to pursue everything that Trump’s most vocal critics might have on their wish lists.)            First, Electors might insist that Trump pledge to support a full investigation into the evidence that Russia sought to swing the election in his favor, to accept the conclusions of that inquiry, and to resign if the investigation reveals that he or his campaign was complicit in Russia’s actions.Second, perhaps Electors could induce Trump to follow established norms concerning his personal finances.  Electors might finally prompt Trump to release his tax returns, as Presidential candidates have uniformly done for decades.  Electors could simply tell Trump, “no tax returns, no electoral votes.”  Electors also could press Trump to do more to avoid self-dealing and conflicts of interest.Third, and perhaps more ambitiously, if Trump’s history of flip-flopping and backtracking gives them pause, Electors could ask him to recommit to some of his most salient campaign promises and accept them as the benchmarks against which his performance as President should be judged.  Electors could identify specific metrics for assessing Trump’s success or failure (e.g., the economic growth rate, job creation, real wages, deficit/debt levels) and then have Trump go on the record and declare that, should he fall short, he will accept full responsibility.What about the collective action problems Jack has identified?  They are real, but they may be less vexing when Electors are acting as negotiators rather than as conscientious objectors.  First, negotiating Electors would presumably understand that the nature of their enterprise calls for them to join together to strengthen their hand.  For conscientious objectors, the need for coordination isn’t quite as obvious. They may see their primary objective as simply being true to their personal convictions.  Second, the pool of potential negotiators is likely larger than the pool of potential outright defectors.  Even Electors who are fairly supportive of Trump ought to embrace the idea of trying to strike a better deal on behalf of their state’s voters.  The larger the pool, the greater the need for Trump to play ball, and the less likely he would be to prevail simply by picking off a few weak-kneed Electors.  Third, and critically, the way for Trump to “pick off” Electors—i.e., to keep them in his camp—is to negotiate with them, which is exactly what we would want, at least as long as the Electors are advocating on behalf of their state’s voters.  Moreover, once Trump starts striking deals with some Electors, that might well embolden additional Electors to seek deals of their own. Of course, it is almost certainly too late in the day for anything along these lines to happen.  But it is worth reflecting on what might have been, especially as we begin to look ahead to next time.Robert Yablon is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School. You can reach him by e-mail at robert.yablon at wisc.edu16 Dec
Why it's so difficult to get the Electoral College to Dump Trump - I've read a lot of scenarios recently in which in which the Electoral College saves the day and prevents Trump from becoming President. The problem is that they neglect very serious collective action problems that are built into the structure of the Electoral College. I'm not saying you can't get around them, just that they pose genuine difficulties, and most people who write about the issue aren't paying enough attention to them.Here's the basic idea: To deny Trump the presidency in the Electoral College, you need to create an unbreakable cartel of 34 Republican electors who were pledged to vote for Trump but who decide not to do so. (303-269=34). Democratic electors don't add anything to the cartel, because they don't reduce Trump's vote total.The problem is that it's very hard to form such a cartel in the first place, and even if it does form it's pretty easy to cause people to defect from it.For purposes of this blog post, let's put aside the very real concerns that the electors may be bound by state law, or that they will face legal sanctions if they don't vote for Trump, or that states will replace them as soon as they find out what they are up to. That's an interesting set of legal debates, but it's not central to my argument. Let's suppose that there are no such obstacles and that state law doesn't act as a disincentive to any elector.  Let's assume that electors are perfectly free to vote for someone other than Trump if they think he would be a disaster.Even so, you still have to form the cartel-- that is, an agreement among at least 34 Republican electors. It's hard to do this because the electors don't meet in a single location so they can't deliberate as a single body. This was a fateful decision by the Philadelphia Convention. They decided that it was too difficult to have the electors travel to the nation's capital to perform a single task (travel was very difficult and hazardous in those days); so instead they decided that each state's electors would meet separately in each state. This makes deliberation within state delegations easy, but deliberation across state delegations hard.  (Compare Congress, which meets in one place, and in which such deliberations happen all the time.)Fortunately, however, interstate travel is easy today, and we have telecommunications and the Internet. So deliberation across state lines is much, much easier than it was at the Founding.  Even so, somebody has to arrange a meeting at which all or most of the relevant electors can deliberate and agree to form a cartel. And you need easily understood procedures and focal points to make it easy for electors to agree on a common course of action. (Thomas Schelling is smiling down from heaven at this point.) But in this case, there are no easily agreed-on procedures and focal points for collective action among the electors. (The lack of easily agreed-on focal points was one reason why it was so hard for Republicans to get rid of Trump during the primary season.)Don't get me wrong: You could get around these organizational problems, but you'd have to start early enough.  (Spoiler alert: nobody started early enough.).In any case, suppose you surmount all of these obstacles.  Suppose that 34 electors are able to form a cartel.  They all agree to vote for a candidate other than Trump.Then comes the next set of problems. Surely Trump is not oblivious to the fact that rogue electors are planning on forming a cartel to depose him. (It's in the papers every day!) Knowing this, it should be child's play for Trump or his people to pick off one or two members of the cartel with side deals. (For example, Trump could offer the elector something that would benefit the elector's home state, or he might promise to consider a certain policy, and so on.) Hasn't anybody read The Art of the Deal?As soon as Trump makes a side deal with one of the 34, the cartel collapses, because Trump now has 270 electoral votes, and the other 33 get nothing. So everyone in the cartel has incentives to defect before the others do. That's yet another reason why these cartels are so hard to form in the first place. (And note as well that there is no sanction for defecting from the cartel--the rogue electors can't easily punish those who secretly promise to vote against Trump and then change their minds.)The only way to keep Trump from peeling off one or two defectors is if the cartel is completely secret, so that Trump can't tell who is a rogue elector who will vote against him. That means he can't find out who to entice to defect. But if the cartel is secret, then it's even harder to organize the cartel in the first place.15 Dec
Globalization and Constitutional Democracy - Consider the following as a candidate for “normalization” or the “new political correctness.”Globalization is inevitable.  This inevitable globalization as inevitably produces and exacerbates severe economic inequality.  No sane political actor can do anything about this rising inequality nor should any sane political actor want to seriously combat this rising inequality.  The only legitimate subject for debate is whether natural processes will ensure that some benefits of globalization trickle down to less fortunate citizens (Republicans) or whether some government intervention is necessary to ensure that most persons enjoy at least some benefits of globalization (Democrats). On the one hand, I do not think I will be thrown out of the next faculty meeting, nor be allowed to renew my membership in the American Political Science Association nor otherwise become a pariah if I question whether government should not and cannot make efforts to combat the severe economic inequalities caused by globalization. On the other hand, I am struck by the way that a major effort was made to place Bernie Sanders out of the mainstream in large part because he was the only candidate for the presidency who questioned the above candidate for political correctness.  As the opprobrium attached to "class warfare," issues of economic inequality have taken a back seat when the subject turns to the present crisis of American constitutional democracy.The immediate constitutional crisis may be some combination of the election of Donald Trump, who fails to meet any constitutional standard for the presidency, save a technical victory under the rules governing presidential election, and a Republican Party that combines Trump’s disdain for basic science with a preference for code words as opposed to Trump’s more explicit bigotry.  The long term constitutional crisis is that the United States (and many constitutional democracies elsewhere) are experiencing levels of economic inequality that most empirical theories suggest are inconsistent with the practical operation of constitutional democracy.  Constitutional democracy functions best when the vast majority of citizens have several characteristics.  First, they are sufficiently well off that life normally is not limited by the struggle to maintain a decent living space, maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle, and provide one’s children with the education they will need to maintain a decent living space, etc.  Second, they are nevertheless not immune to the vagaries of the economic cycle.   Most citizens have good faith reasons for thinking their lives may be transformed into a struggle for basic necessities during an economic downturn, but that they may be able to leave that struggle for basic necessities far behind during an economic upturn.  The United States increasingly lacks these prerequisites of a constitutional democracy.  A small but increasing number of Americans (myself included) know about economic downturns only from the newspapers (or, increasingly, the internet).  An increasing majority of Americans live lives that consist or more or less successful struggles for basic necessities, without much hope that an economic upturn will do more than increase the probability that those struggles will be temporarily successful and without much hope that their children will do much more than struggle for basic necessities.  We live, in short, in Ronald Reagan’s universe, a universe in which the right to become rich that Reagan trumpeted so frequently has become at least of equal importance to the right to live a fully human life.  In this universe, the institutions of constitutional democracy, which allow ordinary persons to influence politics have become enfeebled.  Restoring constitutional democracy is less a matter of getting rid of the class clown as president than restoring such institutions as unions that enabled ordinary people to help shape policies aimed at created the economic perquisites for citizens of a constitutional democracy.15 Dec
Democracy and Dysfunction-- Now with even more Trump! - In the fall of 2015, Sandy Levinson and I wrote an exchange about political dysfunction and constitutional reform for a symposium in Indiana Law Review, where we were the keynote speakers.At that time, neither of us expected Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee.  When that happened, we wrote an additional exchange in August 2016 applying our respective theories.Then all hell broke loose: Trump won the Electoral College in November 2016.  So we've written yet another chapter.All of the installments are now available on SSRN in an extended essay, Democracy and Dysfunction: An Exchange.In the latest installment, Sandy wonders whether we are in for secession and/or civil war. I discuss the rise and fall of republics, and how best to fight against a demagogue.Because the Indiana Law Review would really like to publish the symposium issue soon, there will be no more installments to this article. But I'm sure our conversation will continue in other venues.15 Dec
Trump's Wild Cards or Is This a Constitutional Crisis? - Right now, I see three big wild cards preventing an "ordinary science" or "normalization" approach to studying the forthcoming Trump presidency.  All relate to a fourth perspective I should have mentioned in my post on Trump and regime theory.  I talked about the ideas of change as order, the federal order versus the national order and whether the policy space will dominate the electoral result.The fourth perspective is what happens when Trump's populist brand of politics (I'm being polite) meets the permanent government.  All of the wild cards relate to this potential conflict.  The first is whether Trump will triple down on his insistence that the CIA must be wrong about Russian attempts to interfere with the election.  This insistence has brought him into conflict with an agency that, whatever its problems and past issues, has a great deal of credibility in official Washington, including in Congress.  The second is Trump's evident determination to maintain ownership of his far-flung businesses during his presidency (including, possibly, projects in Russia).  We'll see what Trump says on December 15 [UPDATE-- now apparently pushed off until January!] about how he will handle his businesses, but it seems clear as things stand now that not only does he intend to maintain ownership, but that Republican leaders like Paul Ryan are giving him a pass on this particular issue.  Given what we don't know about Trump's holdings, especially overseas, this has the real potential to create all sorts of ethics conflicts and difficult situations within the executive branch, even setting aside the problem posed by the emoluments clause.  The third wild card, which won't be played, at least not fully for some time, is what happens when President Trump's appointments, policy measures, and decisions meet public opinion.  All presidents are judged, especially within the Beltway, by how popular they are and whether their specific proposals match up with public opinion.  Especially given his lack of experience, Trump cannot fully gauge the effect of being unpopular until he actually experiences it.  But I think we already know he doesn't like it much.All of these wild cards are contributing to considerable uncertainty and discord in the run-up to the Trump inauguration.  In my book American Constitutionalism: From Theory to Politics I argued that the standard form constitutional crises take in the U.S. is caused by uncertainty rather than certainty.  In other words, constitutional crises are not times when political actors set themselves against the Constitution as they see it, but rather when they feel forced by events to push beyond accepted constitutional understandings to a plane of uncertainty in which guideposts from the past are suddenly of no help.  I think that does capture something of the feeling developing in the U.S. today, although it is unclear whether the situation will wind down rather than escalate.  At this point I'm not optimistic, given the significance of the Trump wild cards yet to be played.12 Dec
Introducing the Congressional Clerkship - Abbe Gluck and Dakota Rudesill            In this era of gridlock and difficult politics, a bipartisan group of Senators has done something worth celebrating.  On Monday, with the introduction of the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Act, S. 3499, the Senate has taken the first step not only toward busting the judicial clerkship monopoly on mentoring fresh young law graduates but also toward bridging the enormous gap--a gap in both information and respect--between Congress and the courts.             The bill, sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), would create a dozen clerkship positions in Congress for recent law school graduates, equally divided across chambers and political parties.  The bill envisions them competitively funded at the same level as their federal judicial counterparts.              Legislation scholars and other Congress watchers have long complained that federal judges do not understand Congress, and make little effort to even try.  Our ownworkhas shown the profound disconnect between the assumptions about Congress that courts apply to federal statutes and the way that Congress actually works.  One of us has illustrated, with co-authors, the federal courts’ stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the past several decades’ massive deviations from the textbook legislative process depicted in the famous School House Rock! cartoon—deviations that make our world now one of “unorthodox lawmaking,” even if courts fail to see it or to understand how that fact should affect legal  doctrine.  The other one of us has recently revealed another legislative unorthodoxy unknown to most lawyers, namely, Congress has been doing classified legislating for nearly a full four decades.            A steady stream of federal justices and judges, from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburgto Second Circuit Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann, have suggested for years now ways to bring Congress and the courts into  conversation about their mutual statutory work.  Judge Katzmann, like us, has long emphasized that lawyers and courts need to understand Congress better in order to properly do what today is the kind of work that the vast majority of lawyers must do –namely, interpreting statutes.           The Congress-court gap was not always so wide.  Few today appreciate this, but until about a half century ago leaders in the law moved between the Congress and Supreme Court with some regularity.  More importantly, today there is a dramatically lower level of legislative work experience among the most influential ranks of the legal profession, compared to work experience inside courts, agencies, firms, and academy.  As one of us found in an empirical study a few years ago, strong majorities of federal appellate jurists have prior court, agency, and private practice experience, and nearly half have academic experience, but only 14 percenthave ever worked for a legislature—any legislature—and seen from the inside how the statutes they interpret are made.  Remarkably, this low rate of firsthand legislative experience among federal appellate jurists is roughly three timeswhat it has been among Top 20 law professors and top lawyers nationwide.  Imagine how the discourse could change if there were more people serving in the courts, agencies, the private bar, and on law faculties who understood from firsthand knowledge the process of drafting and enacting modern legislation.              Even putting aside those benefits, there is a story of respectto tell here.  Where law schools recommend that its fresh young graduates apprentice themselves sends a loud signal about how much the profession values and respects those destinations.  Federal judges have long claimed the privileged position of being the most sought-after destination for top law school graduates.  But others have followed suit.  The attractiveness to fresh law school graduates of “Honors” programs and similar opportunities at the U.S. Department of Justice and other agencies, as well as fellowships at public interest legal organizations and academic institutions, not to mention junior associate positions at law firms, are all ways in which the profession signals what experiences it values and what institutions it respects.             Why have we not included Congress in this list?  We don’t need everyone to run for office to see why our legal system stands to gain enormously from training young lawyers to understand statutes. Most judicial law clerks do not aspire to become judges, but their time in judicial clerkships breeds not only understanding, but deep respect for, the institution of courts.  All practicing lawyers will at some point construe a statute – and many lawyers will do it routinely -- while only some will argue a case before a judge.  That is why, as we have documented, a growing and now significant number of top 100 law schools have a legislation-related course as a graduation requirement. Many even give legislation a spot in the treasured and foundational first year curriculum.  This truly is, even more so when Guido Calabresi coined the phrase, the “Age of Statutes.”  How better to signal right now the value of understanding legislation to the work of the law than enacting the Congressional Clerkship Act?          The effort to pass the Congressional Clerkship Act has been a decade in the making.  The deans of more than 120 law schools have written to Congress in support, and legal luminariesacross the political spectrum have long observed that Congress’s failure to be competitive in the “law clerk market” has meant that Congress has comparatively suffered in its ability to shape the legal perspective and harness the talents of the legal profession’s future leaders.           We are both members of the steering committee of the Congressional Clerkship Coalition, the national network of scholars, law students, lawyers, and other current and former practitioners who have been leading the charge for Congress to create a clerkship program.  The committee also includes former Stanford Law Dean Larry Kramer (who started the initiative a decade ago), Georgetown Law Dean Bill Treanor, and another early champion, Georgetown Law Professor Robin West.  We are delighted that law students have done yeoman’s work on the legislation, over the past six years doing every aspect of legislative advocacy with the benefit of training by one of us (Rudesill).          The irony of this week’s progress is not lost on us:  At a low point for notions of “good government,” in the wake of historic gridlock, we have a bipartisan bill in the lame duck session of Congress that is the most optimistic and public-minded gesture of faith in legal-congressional cooperation that we have seen in years.  We hope legal educators and practitioners alike will see the value of this bill.          To that end, finally, consider this fact from the Gluck-Bressmanempirical study of congressional drafting:  Among counsels in Congress who had taken legislation in law school, there was significantly greater understanding of the interpretive presumptions that the courts apply to statutes.  That understanding translates to more legislation written with those presumptions in mind--exactly the foundation of the kind of court-congress conversation that virtually every Justice on the modern Supreme Court, including and perhaps especially the late Justice Scalia, has hoped to create.  With the congressional clerkship, we will be raising a generation of future ex-congressional law clerks who can likewise bring what they learned in Congress out into the broader legal profession.   Maybe they will teach their supervisors --whether they be judges, general counsels, litigators, or law professors--that it generally makes no sense to apply rules of strict linguistic consistency to omnibus legislation; or that appropriations bills are different from non-appropriations bills; or how Congress signals to agencies in statutes; or myriad other facts about congressional lawmaking that come from understanding how Congress works.  Whatever comes out of it, the connections and respect this program will generate across the branches will be worth it. 8 Dec
What the New Majority Will Do – And How They Will Do It - David Super     This is my third of three posts on congressional procedure.  As explained in my previous post, reconciliation provides a ready vehicle for congressional Republicans to enact a radical fiscal agenda with bare majority support in both houses.  Every indication is that today’s Republicans will follow essentially the same script that worked so well for their predecessors under President Reagan, Speaker Gingrich, and President George W. Bush:  first, pass huge, budget-busting tax cuts tilted heavily to upper-income people that are only partially paid for with cuts in programs aiding low-income people, then decry the resulting deficits and cite those to justify additional cuts in anti-poverty and human services programs (with the support of newly reawakened “deficit hawks” who slumbered through the passage of the tax legislation but now demand “shared sacrifice” to deal with the resulting “national emergency” of large structural deficits).       The limitations on reconciliation are real and important, but they should not be overestimated.  Thus, for example, although Republicans probably cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety through reconciliation – because many of its regulatory provisions have no substantial impact on direct spending – reconciliation can effectively destroy the Act by eliminating its Medicaid expansion and its subsidies to help low-income people afford insurance.       In addition, many initiatives that cannot move through reconciliation can move instead through other means.  Efforts to defund discretionary programs, such as those relating to environmental protection or reproductive rights, can proceed on annual appropriations bills.  There, all that programs’ opponents must do is omit funding from the bills written in committee.  Because the legislation President Obama accepted in exchange for an increase in the debt limit imposes strict caps on discretionary appropriations, any floor amendment (in either chamber) to add money for those programs would require offsetting reductions from other programs in the same general area.  (The Deficit Control Act has separate caps for defense and non-defense spending, so cuts to Pentagon spending could not, for example, pay for restoring money for Planned Parenthood.  In practice, offsetting reductions likely would have to come from programs within the jurisdiction of the same one of the twelve appropriations subcommittees.)  Thus, any such amendment would be opposed by both opponents of the program being restored and supporters of the program being cut to provide the offset.       Although appropriations bills are subject to filibuster, preventing them from passing eventually would cause a partial government shutdown.  After savaging Republicans for shutting down the government to advance their funding priorities, Democrats may be reluctant to do so themselves to try to preserve programs dear to them.  It should be noted that appropriators tend to be among the least partisan of all legislators, in large part because they all have pet projects they seek to protect.  This cuts both ways.  On the one hand, Republican appropriators may take less extreme positions on cutting off particular programs in order to win Democrats’ cooperation.  On the other hand, Democratic appropriators, frightened about being frozen out of the whole process and losing funding for projects dear to their constituents or donors, are reluctant to adopt confrontational stances even after defeats on important issues.     Republicans could try to avoid filibusters of other controversial initiatives outside the fiscal area by moving them on appropriations bills.  Both House and Senate rules create points of order against including non-appropriations provisions in appropriations bills (sometimes referred to as “authorizing on appropriations”).  These points of order, however, are far weaker than those that lie against reconciliation bills:  the House Rules Committee can include waivers of these points of order in the special rules that bring appropriations bills to the floor, and a mere majority of the Senate may override them as well.  Thus, Congress not infrequently includes quite elaborate permanent legislation on appropriations bills (such as a harsh and controversial piece of immigration legislation passed as part of an omnibus appropriations bill in 1996).       Congressional budget rules can facilitate destruction of social programs in other ways.  For example, congressional Republicans are widely expected to move legislation early in January that repeals crucial features of the Affordable Care Act with an effective date delayed two years, promising to use that time to craft a replacement.  This allows them to avoid the problem that has dogged them since the ACA was enacted:  their unwillingness either to adopt the mandates and subsidies necessary to make insurance market reforms work or to admit that they would cause tens of millions of people to lose coverage.       If their Members are willing to stand behind this “pig-in-a-poke” legislation, Republicans could enact a repeal without taking responsibility for its consequences.  As the deadline nears for more than twenty million Americans to lose their health coverage, Republicans can use that threat to try to bully Democrats to vote for replacement legislation that is financed by still deeper cuts in other social programs.  Under spending limits set by budget resolutions, any ACA replacement legislation that is not offset with spending reductions would require sixty votes and would be subject to severe criticism as fiscally irresponsible.  Thus, Democrats would face the choice between voting for further cuts to programs for low- and moderate-income people or absorbing the blame for allowing millions of people to lose access to health care when the ACA repeal takes effect.  Better still, from Republicans’ perspective, when the replacement legislation causes many or most of those the ACA covers to lose health insurance, Democrats will have voted for that legislation and thus can share the public’s ire.        History suggests that new majorities tend to overreach and weaken themselves in the process.  Newly-elected President Clinton lost considerable time and political capital when he insisted on passing an overtly partisan, and arguably unnecessary, stimulus bill for an economy that was already growing.  After leading Republicans to a dramatic sweep of Congress in 1994, Speaker Newt Gingrich weakened himself by proposing first the funding of orphanages for children he would displace with welfare cuts and then reductions in funding for school meals programs.  In both instances, he exacerbated the damage by vigorously defending the proposals for weeks after they came under attack.  President George W. Bush squandered his 2004 election victory with a proposal to privatize Social Security, puncturing his post-9/11 aura of invincibility and leaving him vulnerable to further damage – which he promptly sustained by praising an incompetent FEMA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.  President Obama, in turn, surrendered his credibility as an outsider and saw his approval ratings drop when he vigorously defended opulent bonuses for the AIG executives who had driven their company into insolvency.  Nothing about the new majority suggests that it will show any more modesty or self-restraint.      The key question is how much structural damage the new leadership will do before they begin to lose their ability to act.  Expert, sophisticated bureaucracies capable of handling complex scientific problems, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, cannot be built on the fly.  If President Trump and the Republican Congress dismantle important parts of EPA, their successors will not be able to reverse the decision quickly.  Low-income communities are already badly underserved with health care providers and affordable supermarkets; deep cuts to Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) will cause those networks to deteriorate even further, with little prospect of growing back should funding be restored.  Legislation that changes the structure of how taxable income is calculated will be difficult to reverse even when the need for more revenues becomes apparent.  And programs converted to block grants will rapidly be carved up among state-level special interest groups, who will bitterly contest any subsequent efforts to reclaim the funds to reconstitute the program.  After a decade of legislatures diverting money from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant to other projects, most states’ cash assistance programs responded minimally if at all to the millions of families made newly poor in the Great Recession; by contrast, SNAP (which barely escaped being block granted in 1996) more than doubled its participation as unemployment soared.  David Super is Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center. You can reach him by e-mail at David.Super at law.georgetown.edu 6 Dec
How Reconciliation Works: What it Can and Cannot Do - David Super     After President Reagan demonstrated the enormous, underappreciated power of reconciliation to pass unpopular legislation, the Senate imposed stricter constraints on what reconciliation bills could contain.  These limits are likely to prove crucial in coming legislative battles.  This post, the second of three, explores in depth the rules governing reconciliation.  The first post offered an overview of congressional procedure; the third considers how congressional Republicans can leverage their procedural advantages to enact much of their program.       Most of the limits on reconciliation legislation are enforceable with points of order that require sixty votes to overcome.  In other words, provisions violating these limits that could not muster the sixty votes to defeat a filibuster cannot evade a filibuster by moving through reconciliation.  That being said, senators routinely reach agreements not to raise valid points of order.  For example, when a reconciliation bill’s sponsors might plausibly be able to garner sixty votes to waive a particular point of order, opponents may agree to a modification of the objectionable provision or trade the removal of one problematic provision for their forbearance with respect to another.       Limits on reconciliation fall into four main categories.  First, reconciliation legislation is only possible to the extent authorized and directed by congressional budget resolutions.  Under the process envisioned in Congress’s rules, this concurrent resolution opens the annual budget season.  It contains overall ceilings on discretionary appropriations and on direct spending within the jurisdiction of each of Congress’s authorizing committees as well as floors on the revenues provided for in tax legislation.  It also typically includes assumptions about how much will be spent in each of an array of broad categories, or “functions”, of the budget.  The Budget Committees that draft the budget resolution may or may not have particular programmatic changes in mind to reach the targets they set, but these are rarely specified and would not be binding if they were.  The budget resolution also may, but need not, contain “reconciliation instructions” to one or more authorizing committees, as discussed below.     After the budget resolution is drafted in the committee, it comes to the floor under expedited procedures, limiting the hours of debate, narrowing the scope of permissible amendments, and preventing a filibuster in the Senate.  Upon passing their own versions of the budget resolution, conferees from the House and Senate Budget Committees are expected to meet in conference committee, hammer out a joint version, and return it to their respective chambers for final passage.  Because it does not have the force of law, it is not send to the President for signature.  Instead, it functions as a specialized rulebook for fiscal legislation during that session of Congress, with many of its rules enforced through super-strong points of order that, once raised on the Senate floor, require sixty votes to overcome.  In an idealized world, once a concurrent budget resolution is agreed to by both houses, the appropriations committees begin work on their annual spending bills within the caps the resolution has set and the authorizing committees can go to work recrafting programs in their jurisdiction knowing what spending targets they must meet.     The budget resolution is important not just as the starting gun in the race to move fiscal legislation but because it largely sets the terms of the resulting debate.  It can give “reconciliation instructions” to committees with jurisdiction over revenues or direct spending.  These instructions are ceilings for the spending (or floors for the revenue) that may be allowed under legislation reported by these committees.  If a committee fails to report out legislation cutting spending down to the level stated in its reconciliation instruction, the chair of the Budget Committee has the opportunity to seek to amend the non-conforming committee’s proposal to achieve the specified targets.  This threat commonly prompts Members in other committees to vote for legislation they oppose (or at least to use the threat of the Budget Committee adding badly-designed cuts to vote in their own committees for legislation that hurts their constituents or contributors).   Similarly, amendments on the Senate floor generally are not in order if they would cause any committee to breach the level of funding specified for it in the budget resolution.  Thus, amendments to shift funds from farm price supports into health care subsidies for low-income people are likely never to reach a vote because, even though they would not increase the total deficit, they would cause spending under the Finance Committee’s jurisdiction to exceed levels permitted in the budget resolution.  Senators can offer an amendment merely to strike a particularly offensive provision, but the likelihood that its savings would then be replaced by an equally obnoxious cut deters some senators from offering such amendments.     This past year, like most recent years, Congress did not agree upon a concurrent budget resolution.  House and Senate Republican leaders did not see benefit in doing so to justify the amount of arm-twisting of their own Members that would have been required to paper over differences about how deeply to cut spending.  This omission, however, turns out to present them with an unusual opportunity.  Ordinarily, only one budget resolution is passed in each session of Congress, and each budget resolution can authorize no more than one reconciliation bill affecting spending and one reconciliation bill affecting revenues (or a single bill that does both – as well as one debt limit bill).  But because no concurrent budget resolution has passed for the current fiscal year (FFY 2017), congressional Republicans reportedly plan to enact one in early January to allow the gutting of the Affordable Care Act on reconciliation legislation.  Later in the spring, they then will pass another budget resolution, this one for fiscal year 2018, to allow additional rounds of tax and spending reductions.  Thus, we could see two (or more) reconciliation bills moving within a few months of one another this year.       Second, the “Byrd Rule” (named for the late Senate Majority Leader and Appropriations Chairman) confines reconciliation legislation to making changes in revenues and in “direct spending programs    (commonly approximated as “entitlements”).  Thus, for example, amendments to civil rights, immigration, or environmental legislation would generally be impermissible on a reconciliation bill.       Although the definition of revenues is fairly straightforward, understanding the limitation to direct spending programs requires an appreciation of a fundamental division in the structure of the federal budget that built up over time and was formalized in its present form under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.  Federal spending generally is divided between two broad categories:  “discretionary” programs, which depend on annual appropriations, and “direct spending” programs, for which non-appropriations legislation compels spending.  Thus, for example, although the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) operates under legislation passed by the House and Senate Labor Committees, without funding in annual appropriations bills, it would have no money to help low-income people pay their heating bills.  By contrast, the legislation creating the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for low-income people with disabilities or over age 65 operates under legislation (Title XVI of the Social Security Act) defining who is eligible and directing the Commissioner of Social Security to make payments to those eligible people.  If the Commissioner ever failed to do so (for lack of appropriations or otherwise), those whom Title XVI makes eligible could sue for their benefits in the Court of Federal Claims under the terms of Title XVI.  The Commissioner would have no defense, and the resulting judgment would be paid under the Judgment Fund, which has its own permanent, uncapped appropriation.     Thus, reconciliation can reduce expenditures by amending the terms of statutory entitlements in direct spending legislation such as Title XVI or the National School Lunch Act.  It cannot, however, change discretionary programs either by changing the terms of the legislation that authorizes them or by lowering or eliminating their appropriations.  Because essentially all of the Defense Department’s budget is discretionary, reconciliation legislation cannot cancel weapons systems or rein in our overseas involvements.  On the other hand, discretionary programs that some Republicans have criticized harshly, such as funding for Planned Parenthood, do not face direct threats from reconciliation.  (As discussed below, however, they face extreme vulnerabilities elsewhere.)      Understanding that almost anything can be dressed up as a direct spending or revenue change, the Byrd Rule also creates a sixty-vote point of order against any provisions in a reconciliation bill whose revenue or spending effects are “merely incidental” to its non-budgetary purposes.  Because Republican Senate Majority Leaders have some history of discharging parliamentarians whose rulings they dislike, the scope of this limitation in practice is difficult to predict.     Third, reconciliation legislation may not change programs under Title II of the Social Security Act, which governs Old-Age, Survivors’ and Disability Insurance (OASDI).  This rule was included to remove the temptation to finance tax cuts or other spending with increases in the retirement age or cutbacks in benefits to people with disabilities.  The point of order against Social Security cuts is a particularly powerful one, bringing down the whole legislation (rather than just the offending provision).  On the other hand, it does not limit changes in other titles of the act, including those governing Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI.     And fourth, reconciliation legislation cannot, in aggregate, increase the deficit in years beyond those covered in the budget resolution.  Because budget resolutions typically cover ten years, this can be an obstacle to enacting permanent tax cuts and spending increases.  Accordingly, Democrats designed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 to reduce the deficit both during the first ten years and subsequently.     One might think that, if the purpose of reconciliation was to overcome obstacles to deficit reduction, its procedures would not be available to enact legislation that would increase the deficit.  That was the original understanding, but congressional Republicans dropped that limitation to pass President Bush’s budget-busting tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.  Democrats reinstated the prohibition on deficit-increasing reconciliation bills when they regained control of Congress in 2007, but Republicans removed those rules again when they took back the Senate in 2015.  Thus, the prohibition on reconciliation legislation that increases long-term deficits is the only remaining restriction on budget-busting.     This limitation has had an important impact.  It forced congressional Republicans to impose a sunset on President Bush’s tax cuts.  After several extensions, President Obama ultimately was able to trade the termination of a few of the most egregious for making the rest of them permanent.  Had the cuts been permanent in the first place, he would have had no such leverage.  More generally, this rule can put a damper on tax cuts that take the form of allowing the very rich essentially to pre-pay taxes at a steep discount, producing an apparent increase in revenues in the first few years while much more severely reducing revenues in the long term.       In my third and final post, I will consider in more detail how these procedures will facilitate enactment of congressional Republicans’ agenda in the coming months and years. David Super is Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center. You can reach him by e-mail at David.Super at law.georgetown.edu 5 Dec

Core News

Obama Wraps a Christmas Gift for Steyer: Drilling Bans by Executive Order - Back in November, billionaire Tom Steyer asked President Obama to ban offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. At the time, Politico noted the order would require “largely untested authority.” It relies on a subsection of a decades-old law. Now it appears President Obama is ready to make Steyer’s wish come true. More from Bloomberg: President Barack Obama is preparing to block the sale of new offshore drilling rights in much of the U.S. Arctic and parts of the Atlantic, a move that could indefinitely restrict oil production there, according to two people familiar with the decision. Obama will invoke a provision in a 1953 law that gives him wide latitude to withdraw U.S. waters from future oil and gas leasing, said the people who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced. It must pay to be a billionaire donor. For the second straight cycle, Steyer spent tens of millions of dollars promoting Democrats. Now, for the second straight cycle, Steyer’s candidates lost. Still, Steyer gets a sweet consolation prize for Christmas. Under Obama’s new order, America’s energy economy will be less competitive and more expensive. Of course, that’s just what the Environmentalist Left wants. The post Obama Wraps a Christmas Gift for Steyer: Drilling Bans by Executive Order appeared first on Core News.21 Dec
Vermont Activist Blasts Wind Projects McKibben Tried to Strong-Arm - Nancy Tips published an op-ed bashing “Big Wind” in the VT Digger on Tuesday. Tips is an activist for Friends of Windham. They are opposed to “industrial wind installation[s]” in parts of Vermont. In the VT Digger, Tips lays out ten reasons why the “Big Wind” project is bad for Vermont towns: Vermont’s rural communities don’t want giant industrial plants to destroy their most beloved assets, peace, quiet, wildlife and scenery that lift the heart of all but the cruelest. Tips then explains that ratepayers will pay more under the plan: This reason might be even more infuriating: Vermont’s regular people, citizens of all income levels, will have to pay the most regressive form of economic penalty, now that we are witnessing the crash of the [Renewable Energy Credits] market. Tips will not have an ally in Bill McKibben. The radical environmentalist is an aggressive supporter of wind. This year, McKibben switched his support from one Vermont candidate to another over wind. McKibben pulled support from Matt Dunne because Dunne said towns should have a say in “whether to allow wind projects” or not. Still, McKibben is a big believer in towns and cities that want to ban fracking. This year, he threw weight into stopping a pipeline that would have benefited Vermont ratepayers. It’s clear McKibben has a one-track mind on energy: forget the voters, unless they want to ban oil and gas. The post Vermont Activist Blasts Wind Projects McKibben Tried to Strong-Arm appeared first on Core News.21 Dec
Leonardo DiCaprio Chooses Chinese Electric Vehicle Company - Jet-setting Leonardo DiCaprio, a self-appointed spokesperson for environmental activism, has decided to cash in on his fringe rhetoric. DiCaprio recently announced he will serve as a “brand ambassador in China for BYD’s line of new energy vehicles:” BYD Company announced today that Leonardo DiCaprio, UN Messenger of Peace and Academy Award-winning actor will serve as new brand ambassador in China for BYD’s line of new energy vehicles. The company is one of the largest new energy vehicle manufacturers in the world, accounting for 11 percent of the global market in 2015 alone.  But DiCaprio’s rhetoric don’t match his behavior. In his recent documentary “Before the Flood,” DiCaprio openly admitted that his carbon footprint was “probably bigger than most people’s.” This, of course, isn’t surprising, considering the DiCaprio’s “environmentalist” lifestyle consists of private yachts, luxury SUVs, and private jets. DiCaprio’s recent move to support a Chinese electric vehicle company is hardly surprising. In 2016, DiCaprio has made a point to surround himself with fellow out-of-touch elites, all while he has preached a doctrine of doom about the environment. Ironically, DiCaprio invests in a country that won’t even allow people to speak freely about the environmental issues that its people face. It seems his goal is to exploit a taxpayer-funded, niche market by catering to the ultra-wealthy like himself. Environmentalists like DiCaprio try to talk up electric vehicles by claiming they are “clean” and “green,” but in reality they rely on rare earths that cause nightmarish environmental damage in places like China. DiCaprio enjoys a lavish lifestyle far above that of the average working American. Now he plans to use his clout, money, and time in China to cash in on his radical rhetoric. The post Leonardo DiCaprio Chooses Chinese Electric Vehicle Company appeared first on Core News.19 Dec
Indeed.com Reveals Exuberance In The Oil And Gas Job Market - According to data from the job search website Indeed.com, increased job openings in the oil and gas industry in Texas indicate optimism for employers and employees alike: Indeed used its own data on jobs postings and job seekers, as well as looking at job postings on other websites. Oil-related job postings peaked at around 8 per 10,000 advertised job openings in early 2014, bottomed at around 2 per 10,000 positions this summer. They have risen to just above 3 per 10,000 now. With nearly 205,000 Texans working in the oil and gas industry, even more growth is expected as new massive oil and gas opportunities are discovered and energy opportunities are unleashed in Texas after the recent OPEC decision. Texas rig count has seen significant increases in the last half of a year as the Permian Basin in West Texas and the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas have boosted oil and gas activities: The number of active rigs hunting oil or gas hit a low in May of 404 in the U.S. Last week, there were 624 working drilling rigs, according to service company Baker Hughes, a 55 percent increase. (The Permian Basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico had 246 of those rigs, up from a low of 134 in early May. The Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas had 43 rigs, up from a bottom of 29 active rigs in late May). Not only is there an increase in jobs in the oil and gas industry, but they are also a good source of wealth as these jobs usually pay more as compared to other industries: Oil and gas workers have responded quickly to the increase in job postings, wasting no time in applying for jobs. Culbertson said the draw is likely “the monetary aspect” at work — oil and gas jobs tend to pay more than other industries. With the worst clearly behind us, the oil and gas industry in Texas is prepared to drive Texas’ thriving economy, unlocking good-paying jobs and economic opportunity along the way. The post Indeed.com Reveals Exuberance In The Oil And Gas Job Market appeared first on Core News.16 Dec
Study: Fracking Creates U.S. Jobs, Makes Other Industries More Competitive - A new study from The London School of Economics (LSE) reveals that fracking is good for American jobs. More from LSE: We document that output in energy-intensive sectors expands significantly with the widening of the natural gas price gap. Consistent with that observation, we show that the energy-intensive sectors absorb more capital (measured by capital expenditure decisions as a proxy) and labour (captured by employment) in order to produce this additional output. Translation: fracking creates American jobs and makes American businesses more efficient. Of course, the Environmentalist Left is rarely an advocate for jobs – if those jobs get in the way of their radical agenda. A fracking ban, which Bill McKibben and Tom Steyer support, would cost nearly 15 million jobs by 2022. Even vanquished Democratic presidential Hillary Clinton said fracking opponents need to “get a life.” To no one’s surprise, though, the Environmentalist Left has learned no lessons from 2016. Instead, they’re doubling down on American job losses, taxes, and expensive energy. The post Study: Fracking Creates U.S. Jobs, Makes Other Industries More Competitive appeared first on Core News.16 Dec
WaPo Lauds “Booming” Solar Industry (But it’s Because of Government Subsidies) - The Washington Post headline looks like a win for the Environmentalist Left: “The U.S. solar industry is booming — and it isn’t afraid of Trump.” Read the story, though, and you’ll see what the Environmentalist Left doesn’t want you to know: solar is dependent on government subsidies. More from The Washington Post: One reason for the boom likely involved uncertainty over the future of the federal solar investment tax credit, which was slated to terminate at the beginning of 2017. With this in mind, many solar companies planned to push through as many projects as possible in 2016. At the end of 2015, the tax credit ended up receiving an unexpected extension, which has now given companies the freedom to allow some of these projects to spill over from the end of 2016 into 2017. The Post even notes that a decline in residential solar – buried in the ninth paragraph of the story – is due to a decline in government subsidies: On the other hand, residential solar fell by 10 percent from the previous quarter, an outcome Kimbis says is likely due to a variety of factors. For one thing, several states have made notable policy changes that may have affected their markets in significant ways. Nevada, for instance, decided to cut its net metering rates at the end of 2015 — this is a practice that allows solar customers to sell excess electricity they generate to their local utilities at a retail, rather than wholesale, rate. (The state later restored retail-rate net metering for its existing solar customers.) And, despite the election of Trump, “clean” energy advocates are optimistic because – you guessed it – the subsidies are scheduled to continue: Provided there are no unexpected changes to the federal tax credit for solar, many experts predict that the industry will continue to expand, driven mainly by market forces and individual state policies. One thing is clear from The Washington Post article: the Environmentalist Left’s preferred forms of energy cannot survive with federal government subsidies. The post WaPo Lauds “Booming” Solar Industry (But it’s Because of Government Subsidies) appeared first on Core News.15 Dec
Obama Administration Signs Death Warrant For American Eagles - Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made a final ruling on wind turbines that will sign the death warrant for tens of thousands of protected eagles. According to Politico Pro, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s new rule extends “the period that wind projects can be permitted to injure or kill protected eagles from five years to 30 years.” Core News previously covered the Obama administration’s consideration of this rule, which would let wind turbines kill up to 4,200 bald eagles per year. Even with evidence from a recent study suggesting wind turbines may be particularly dangerous to bats, the administration is allowing wind farms to kill more iconic American eagles: In a study published Monday, researchers in the United Kingdom found that environmental impact assessments — the main tool used to predict the ecological effects of a new energy development — commonly failed to predict the number of bats that would have fatal collisions with wind turbines’ spinning blades. Academics, such as Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson, call for massive taxpayer investment in wind turbines, and environmental extremists like Bill McKibben demand “sun and wind and hydropower” replace fossil fuels. It appears the decimation of American’s most iconic bird is an acceptable cost for “green energy.” The post Obama Administration Signs Death Warrant For American Eagles appeared first on Core News.14 Dec
McKibben Takes Victory Lap on Job Losses - Bill McKibben took to the liberal Huffington Post on Tuesday for yet another op-ed. McKibben bragged about his divestment movement, even though voters rejected his agenda last month. In the op-ed, McKibben took a victory lap on Peabody’s bankruptcy: Withdrawing that $5 trillion from the industry has had real effects: when Peabody Coal announced its bankruptcy last year, it cited the divestment campaign as one of the reasons. While McKibben celebrated the shuttering of Peabody, hundreds of people lost their jobs. Peabody filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April 2016. Weeks earlier, Peabody Energy and Arch Coal laid off 235 jobs in Wyoming. In February, 75 people lost their Peabody jobs in Southern Illinois. In July 2015, Peabody cut hundreds of jobs in “corporate and regional support.” One Wyoming man told WyoFile: “One of my friends just bought a house in Wright just after I left … I think about that and think, gosh, if he loses his job what is he going to do?” It’s not the first time McKibben has demonstrated disgust with working Americans. In September, he wrote in a New Republic op-ed: Union workers have truly relied on those jobs to build middle-class lives, and all of us burn the damned stuff, all day, every day. But the problem is, it is that simple. We have to “turn away.” We have to “keep it in the ground.” The numbers are the numbers. We literally cannot keep doing what we’re doing if we want to have a planet. For McKibben, the divestment movement is another bragging item for his bio and op-eds. For communities across America, the divestment movement means job losses. The post McKibben Takes Victory Lap on Job Losses appeared first on Core News.14 Dec
What Advice Does Elon Musk Think He Has To Offer President-Elect Trump? - Today, Silicon Valley executives, including Tesla’s Elon Musk, will hold a “tech summit” with President-Elect Donald Trump: Musk is expected to attend, along with top execs from Apple, Facebook, Google and a handful of other companies. What’s curious, though, it just what advice Musk thinks he has to offer the president-elect about growing the economy. In Nevada, for example, Musk only delivered a fraction of the jobs he promised there: The 331 total employees noted in an audit are just a fraction of those anticipated by this time when lawmakers approved the incentive package in September 2014. An analysis by Applied Economics and presented as testimony during the special session projected 1,700 workers at the plant by the end of this year. Musk also builds a product claimed to be “clean” and “green,” but that relies on rare earth minerals that create nightmarish environmental damage. The stakes are high for Musk, as his business empire depends on the continued flow of billions of dollars in taxpayer money. With the recent purchase of several cash hungry businesses, Musk is left facing a multi-billion dollar “cash squeeze” that is leaving Wall Street analysts deeply concerned. Perhaps Musk will try to steer his conversation today toward his company’s desperate need for endless taxpayer subsidies, which could cost hard-working Americans even more tax dollars. The post What Advice Does Elon Musk Think He Has To Offer President-Elect Trump? appeared first on Core News.14 Dec
A Growing Gap Between The Energy Rich And The Energy Poor - The Telegraph reports that, thanks to its increasing reliance on unreliable renewable energy sources, the United Kingdom’s rich may pay for more dependable electric power while the poor may end up sitting in the dark: Britain’s increasing reliance on “intermittent” renewable energy means that the country is facing an unprecedented supply crisis, a senior Ofgem executive has warned. Andrew Wright, a senior partner at Ofgem and former interim chief executive, warned that households could be forced to pay extra to keep their lights on while their neighbours “sit in the dark” because “not everyone will be able to use as much as electricity as they want”. He warned that in future richer customers will be able to “pay for a higher level of reliability” while other households are left without electricity. According to an official with a gas and electricity regulatory agency, the UK closed coal mines and now has less flexibility in its electricity supply: Mr Wright said that because Britain has lost fuel capacity because of the closure of coal mines, there is now “much less flexibility” for suppliers. Energy poverty is already a problem in the UK. A university study showed that winter deaths in England and Wales increased in the winter of 2014-2015 thanks to lower indoor temperatures: An estimated 9,000 people died last winter in England and Wales as a result of living in a cold home, a university study has suggested. It found a fifth of the 43,900 excess winter deaths in 2014-2015 were caused by low indoor temperatures, BBC Panorama has learned. Cold homes increase the risk of respiratory infections, heart attacks and strokes, the researchers said. That winter wasn’t the coldest on record. Instead, high fuel prices harmed those who could least afford them: Dr Jessica Allen, whose team conducted the study, told BBC Panorama: “This was not the coldest winter on record. People dying from cold homes are a result of high fuel prices, low incomes and poor insulation. It’s entirely preventable. “If that was an epidemic of some disease there would quite rightly be people marching in the streets and causing an outrage, but this is because of the cold.” Dr Allen said the figure was a shocking indictment on the current levels of fuel poverty. The charity Age UK estimates that fuel poverty, where people cannot afford to heat their home, costs the NHS around £1.3bn every year. The post A Growing Gap Between The Energy Rich And The Energy Poor appeared first on Core News.12 Dec

Crooked Timber

Happy Christmas, Timberteers - Milo sends best wishes from London to all the CT gang. OK, whatever, he’s a dog. He’s only eaten three or four baubles and so far today is more or less continent. Wishing everyone who’s part of CT a great Christmas, Hannukah, holidays and all the rest of it. Bit of a weird one, this. I can’t quite find it in myself to write ‘happy New Year’ on everyone’s cards as who knows what’s in store, and the very things that made 2016 so disastrous will make 2017 … oh, well. Here’s another dog picture. Be more dog, guys. Be more dog.05:09
All Around My Hat - Weird memory. 1985, in some sort of lecture room in Kings College overlooking the Strand. A song starts to fade in, seeming to come from the road below. “Whatever You Want, Whatever You Need….etc”. It gets louder and LOUDER. A new song begins, using the same chords… “Again and Again” maybe? It’s impossible to ignore. We look down at the street and there they are, moving along slowly on a flatbed truck. The lecturer has no idea who the band is. In fact, some of the kids at Kings then are so posh they don’t seem to know. Impressive. I guess that’s the only time I’ll see Status Quo live.24 Dec
Public Ownership: Excerpt from Two Lessons book - Here’s another excerpt from my book-in-progress, Economics in Two Lessons. As usual, praise is welcome, useful criticism even more so. You can find a draft of the opening sections here. In the section over the fold, I’m looking at public ownership. While the US adopted trustbusting and regulation as solutions to the monopoly power, most other developed countries preferred direct public ownership. This was in part due to the greater popularity of socialist ideas and in part due to the perceived failure of regulated monopolies to deliver adequate outcomes. By the middle of the 20th century, infrastructure services such as railways, telecommunications, water supply and electricity were provided by public enterprises in most developed countries. These enterprises charged market prices for their services, typically designed to cover the opportunity costs of the resources used in providing the service and a surplus sufficient to cover depreciation and finance new investment. Over time, many of these enterprise were converted to a corporatised form and paid dividends, which provide a source of revenue for governments. Along with redistributive policies of various kinds, the public ownership of monopoly enterprises contributed to the historically unprecedented reduction in inequality that took place in the decades after 1945, sometimes referred to as ‘The Great Compression’. Moreover, the period of public ownership was one of substantial expansion of infrastructure networks. Electricity supply, which had previously been patchy and often confined to urban areas, became almost universal. Highway systems expanded greatly, with such developments US Interstate System as the most prominent examples. Telephone systems grew from local services to national and international networks, with steadily declining costs However, public enterprises were subject to two significant criticisms. First, they were seen as overstaffed and inefficient. Second, although they generated sufficient revenue to cover the opportunity costs of production in aggregate, the prices charged for particular services did not necessarily reflect the opportunity cost of providing those services. There were extensive cross-subsidies, for example between rural and urban users and between households and business. These criticisms emerged gradually over the post war decades. However, as long as Keynesian macroeconomic policies delivered full employment and continued economic growth, faith in the ability of governments to manage the economy extended to a judgement that the benefits of public enterprise outweighed the costs. Although there were shifts back and forth, with enterprises being nationalised for various reasons, and others privatised (fn: this term was not much used; the prevailing term denationalised reflected the fact that such movements were counter to the general trend) the general trend was towards greater public ownership. The economic crises of the 1970s, and the failure of Keynesian policies to control them put an end to this. From the 1980s onwards, the trend towards greater public ownership was reversed. Beginning with the Thatcher government in the United Kingdom, public enterprises of all kinds were privatised. Much of the political appeal of privatisation arose from the appearance of a ‘free lunch’ for governments selling assets. The proceeds of the asset sales could be used to finance current government expenditure, or new investments in desirable infrastructure, without the need to raise taxes or issue debt. As is usually the case, the appearance of a free lunch was illusory. The opportunity cost of privatising a public asset is the loss of the income flowing to the government from ownership of the asset (dividends or earnings retained and reinvested). In most of the privatisations undertaken after 1980, assets were underpriced, so that the value realised in the sale was less than the opportunity cost associated with lower future income. Once the sale proceeds were spent, governments were permanently poorer because of the loss of earnings flowing from the now-private enterprises. Although free-market economists who advocated privatisation were mostly happy to let governments chase the free lunch of revenue from asset sales, their real hope was that, with government enterprisess out of the way, competitive markets would emerge, and that Lesson 1 would once gain be relevant. Advocates of privatisation produced a range of studies suggesting that the problems of natural monopoly had been overstated and was easily soluble (fn contestability). As a result, they largely ignored the earlier failures of regulation, assuming that regulation would be needed only for a transitional period, until a fully competitive market emerged. They disregarded concerns about the distribution of income and wealth, believing that the efficiency benefits associated with privatisation would be sufficient to provide lower prices for consumers, higher returns for investors and even some kind of compensation for displaced workers. Initial evaluations of privatisation were highly positive. The World Bank, in particular, was an influential booster, and continues to promote the idea, though with an increasingly defensive tone. Over time, however, problems became more evident. The cost savings from firing large numbers of technical workers were partially or completely offset by the expansion of marketing and finance divisions, and by an explosion in the salaries and bonuses paid to a growing number of senior managers, who also required support staff. Moreover, the promised benefits to consumers often did not arise. Sometimes prices rose instead of falling. In other cases, lower prices were accompanied by reduced quality of services. Other costs have been slower to become apparent. A UN report in 2014 noted that privatisation of education had harmed educational opportunities for women and girls. On the other hand, privatisation has proved a highly reliable method of enriching those who have managed to secure control of the process. Many of the great fortunes that symbolise the rise of the global “1 per cent”, from those of Russian oligarchs to the world’s richest man, Mexican Carlos Slim, have been derived from privatisation. These failures have led to a slowing down in the push to privatisation, and even to some reversals. Examples include the renationalisation of the British railway track system and of the entire New Zealand rail network and Australia’s creation of a publicly owned National Broadband Network following the failure of its privatised telecom company to create such a network. In the end, the choice between public ownership and regulated private monopoly involves the need to strike a balance between different opportunity costs. That balance has shifted over time, partly in response to technological changes and partly as a result of ideological shifts in thinking. Since the 1970s, excessive faith in Lesson 1 has led to a sharp movement away from public ownership, without any clear attempt to assess the balance of costs and benefits. Such a reassessment is long overdue.23 Dec
Welcoming the new boy at school - When I was 13 a new boy called Matthew Arnold arrived at my secondary school. It wasn’t the beginning of the year, just some random autumn day—not even a Monday. 15 minutes before the bell went for school Ms. Bolton brought him to me through the drizzle, told me his name, and told me to look after him and introduce him to people. He wasn’t in my class, and Ms. Bolton had never taught me, so God knows why she asked me to do it—I was not the friendliest, or the most socially adept, kid, by a long shot. He was taller than me, gangly, with big NHS specs, and more socially awkward. Being the new kid could be a cruel experience, as I later discovered myself. We became sort-of friends, me and Matthew. He loved that ELO, in whom I had no interest at all (but I do love them now; they were/are great!). I realise now that he was clever enough to mess around in our Ad Maths class and still do well (whereas I wasn’t, really, so I messed around a bit less than he did). He lived near the school so I remember occasionally stopping at his house on the long (2 mile) walk home. He had a stupid teenage sense of humour. We all loved Reggie Perrin, and some significant amount of time was spent doing call/response “Great, CJ”; “Soooouper, CJ”. (One unfortunate kid in our year had the initials CJ, but had the character to just accept that as his given name after a while). He prank-called people called Perrin by looking them up in the phone book, and asking “Is Reggie there” and then, when whoever was on the other end denied Reggie’s existence, he’d say “Tell him CJ called. I didn’t get where I am today by not knowing Reggie’s number” or some such. It seemed hilarious at the time and, frankly, I can’t write about it even now without grinning. He was mischievous, and naughty, but never unkind—there were boys to whom many were cruel, and although I hope I never partook in that, I know he didn’t. I’m sure he had a crush on my friend Caroline, though he’d never have admitted it; we always sat with her in Ad Maths, and I’m sure that was his doing rather than hers or mine. I moved schools 3 years later, and became the new boy myself. It was a different situation—I moved into a small 6th form in a large school—several groups of kids had known each other since reception class, and I was a distinct interloper (and the son of the Chief Education Officer). And still not especially socially adept. Nobody was assigned to me. But 2 lads called Robert—Knight, and Downer—took it on themselves to befriend me. They lived bloody miles away (as did half of the 6th formers) so I only saw them at school. We had bugger-all in common—Downer was a talented artist, and Knight was obsessed with the military; whereas I was oblivious to visual art, and more or less a pacifist. But I liked them, and found their company effortlessly relaxing. Unpretentious, unassuming, and accepting. They talked about interesting things—Knight had opinions about Israel and the Middle East which nobody I had ever known under 60 had! Downer made fun of me for being a ‘leader of men’ because of my increasing involvement in political activism, but it was always only partly fun-making. I don’t think they knew how kind they were being. But it was so easy for English kids of our generation just to ignore and marginalize other people without ever being called out on being rude or cruel. Still is no doubt. And we all knew it! Over time I became much more integrated, and had other good friends. It was only quite recently that I have re-established contact and thanked them—both of them, separately, just said something to the effect of “Its probably just that nobody talked to us, either!”. Knight buggered off into the some part of the armed forces at some point—in fact, I suspect I knew him for no more than 9 months—but Downer saw out both years of the 6th form. I learned two weeks ago that Matthew Arnold died in a motor bike accident shortly after he left school. Is it ridiculous to be shocked and saddened by a death that occurred so long ago to someone I wouldn’t have seen anyway? Well, I was. When the information emerged in a school-based facebook discussion, several unexpected people expressed their appreciation of him. Apparently he was a fine musician, something I never knew! I hope he understood that he was appreciated: it was so easy for English kids of our generation never to know they were liked. And I hope I was half as good at making him feel welcome on that grey autumn day which wasn’t a Monday as Downer and Knight were at making me feel accepted just a couple of years later. As for Knight and Downer: Downer is a quiet presence on my facebook feed, and teaches art in a secondary school. Knight, by contrast, is one of the loudest presences on my facebook feed—he left the military after, from what I can make out was a long career, and makes a living as a photographer I think in Germany, and plays the role of a grumpy old man who wishes he was politically incorrect, but doesn’t have it in him. Their Christmas present from me: getting tagged in the facebook mention of this post. Thanks Rob, and Bob, and for you, in particular, Rob, don’t think you can get of your friends finding out what you are really like. And if you knew Matthew, do as I do, and think of him every time you hear this one:20 Dec
The economics of open borders - A colleague recently sent me a paper on the economics of open borders, by John Kennan, which I hadn’t known of before, though it came out in 2013. Kennan’s conclusion is striking Liberal immigration policies are politically unpopular. To a large extent, this is because the beneficiaries of these policies are not allowed to vote. It is also true, however, that the enormous benefits associated with open borders have not received much attention in the economics literature.20 Economists are generally enthusiastic about free trade. But if free movement of goods is important, then surely free movement of people is even more important. One conclusion of this paper is that open borders could yield huge welfare gains: more than $10,000 a year for a randomly selected worker from a less-developed country (including non-migrants). Another is that these gains are associated with a relatively small reduction in the real wage in developed countries, and even this effect disappears as the capital–labor ratio adjusts over time; indeed if immigration restrictions are relaxed gradually, allowing time for investment in physical capital to keep pace, there is no implied reduction in real wages. So, is Kennan right about the benefits of open borders? And if so, is there a way of transferring some of those benefits to already-resident wage earners who would otherwise lose, or at least not gain, from expanded migration? On the first question, I’ll offer a bold Maybe. Kennan’s core assumption is that immigrant workers with a given level of education and (I think) experience will have the same productivity as already resident workers. So a move from a low productivity country to a high productivity country produces a big increase in their effective labor capacity. That benefits those workers, but also produces a shift in global income from labor to capital since the supply of labor has increased. There’s room to debate this assumption, and there are special cases where it clearly doesn’t apply, such as that of professionals whose qualifications aren’t recognised in their new country. But Kennan makes a good case that it isn’t far from the truth. Moreover, in a world where more than a billion people travel internationally each year, it’s inevitable that vast numbers of people are going to have close relationships of all kinds with citizens of other countries. Restrictions on movements across borders impose costs on all those people ranging from minor to calamitous. Supposing that Kennan is right about the economics, what can be done to spread the benefits of open (or less tightly closed) borders more broadly and thereby, potentially, get increased political support. Since owners of capital benefit from open borders, an obvious possibility would be to increase the rate of tax on capital income and redistribute the income to labor. That seems neat enough in the abstract, but there’s no obvious (to me) way of putting it together as a political package. The other way to spread the gains would be to tax, or otherwise capture, some of the benefits gained by immigrant workers. For example, new immigrants could be obligated to make a contribution, say through a tax surcharge, to a fund representing their share of the existing infrastructure of the destination country. Again, it seems neat enough in the abstract, but there are obvious difficulties. In particular, migrants who could have entered anyway would be significantly worse off. Still, it seems unlikely that support for the migration policy status quo, let alone an expansion of existing flows, will be an adequate response to the rise of rightwing identity politics (what I’ve previously called tribalism), in which opposition to migration is a central feature. The more people who see freer movement as benefitting them and their families, the better will be the chances of mobilising support for a diverse and tolerant society.20 Dec
Racist incidents on campus - My campus—like, no doubt, a good number of others—has been afflicted over the past 18 months or so by what seems like a rise in the number of racist incidents. We made the headlines recently, when someone attended a football game with an Obama mask on and a noose around his neck. (Oddly enough, the football stadium did not have a standing rule against people attending with nooses round their necks – and I am not sure how you can reasonably introduce such a rule frankly when you are about to introduce a rule that people can attend carrying guns). But there have been other, to my mind nastier (because anonymous) incidents. Nazi and other white-supremacist symbols scrawled here and there; “Heil Hitler” salutes in the face of two girls leaving sorority known (by those in the know which, bizarrely, includes me) to have a preponderance of Jewish members; racist graffiti in the bathrooms, etc. I say it ‘seems’ like a rise, because we don’t know how well reported incidents were before we introduced a specific mechanism for distinguishing racist and other ‘hate and bias’ incidents from general bad behaviour a couple of years ago. If there has really been a growth in incidents, that would be easy to explain. But one point of the post is to ask what the evidence suggests about whether there actually has been an increase on other campuses. The other is to tell a little story about one of the lesser-known incidents. I tell the story because it is mildly amusing, but also because it hints at a different response to such incidents than that which has been publicized so much by the anti-coddling brigades. (I should say that students on my campus do not seem to demand coddling, though you might think that my response in the vignette below was a coddling response). A student I regularly met with in the Spring is a member of a (n actually) Jewish sorority and, probably not coincidentally, Jewish. During one of our meetings I casually said something about one of the racist incidents in the news, and she became somewhat animated (to say she is not, usually, animated, would be an understatement) and told me not only about the Hitler salute incident above (which I didn’t yet know about) but that the door of a building right opposite her sorority house had a white supremacist symbol scratched into it. She complained that it had been there for a number of weeks, even though they had told the police about it, and asked the building owner to remove it. I can completely see why it might need to be kept up for a week, maybe even more, for evidence (what do I know?) but it did seem to me that covering it up would be easy and would damage the evidence less than leaving it open to the elements. And that after a few weeks it is hard to see what purpose keeping it around would serve. “Why haven’t you guys just covered it up or painted it over?” “Well”, she looked uncomfortable, “We’re worried that we might get into a trouble”. I laughed and told her I knew plenty of students who enjoyed getting into trouble, and, also, that I doubted a group of Jewish women would get into trouble for eradicating a racist symbol. But, different people have different strengths, and I know that it’s not her kind of thing. When she came in two weeks later, the symbol was still there, and I asked if she would mind if I mentioned it to some of my students who like getting into trouble. She was enthused. Very soon after that I was socializing with a few such students, and mentioned the issue: 4 of the students were connected to 4 non-overlapping groups of trouble makers. So I texted the picture of the symbol and gave them the address. That was Monday of exam week. On Wednesday I ran into one of the 4 potentially trouble-making students—a whip smart, painfully softly spoken, Chinese woman who was graduating. In a tone that is as close to complaining as I’ve ever heard from her, she said she and her friends went out on Monday but the symbol had been eradicated already (i.e., someone else had got there first). She went on to ask if I knew of any other symbols she could paint over, and was sufficiently pushy that I started wondering whether I should be commissioning such symbols for her to deal with. I didn’t see the original student again till the Fall. We meet from time to time and she has, this semester, told me about two more anti-semitic incidents off-campus that, as far as I know, have not been reported in the press. She confirmed that the symbol was eradicated on the Monday night, and I explained, somewhat apologetically, what had happened. She seemed fine with it. But maybe you think I should have handled it differently; if so I’m curious how. (Btw, the thought in the final sentence of the previous paragraph was a joke).19 Dec
Open thread: best books of 2016 - An open thread for commenters to recommend their favourite books of 2016. I’ll start with Lynsey Hanley’s Respectable (Allen Lane). Trying to understand my country in the light of the EU referendum vote, I picked up a copy of Lynsey Hanley’s Respectable: The Experience of Class. I’m glad I did. Hanley is now an academic at Liverpool John Moores and lives a life shaped by the culture and expectations of Britain’s middle class, nourished, as she explains, by a diet based on mackerel and pulses. But this isn’t where she started. Life began on a vast working-class estate on the edge of Birmingham, Chelmsley Wood, a place to where many families had been decanted as part of the post-war social democratic experiment, and where they’d stayed. The book is about social class and social mobility, about getting from there to here, and about the “walls in the head” that make the transition a matter of profound anxiety and which stop many people from leaving at all. It is also about divisions within the working class, between those who cope with their subordinate status by keeping up appearances, and those who don’t, between those who read the Mirror and those who read the Sun. As Hanley puts it in the introduction: “Changing class is like emigrating from one side of the world to the other, where you have to rescind your old passport, learn a new language and make gargantuan efforts if your are not to lose touch completely with the people and habits of your old life.”18 Dec
Sunday photoblogging: Hebron Road - 18 Dec
Monopoly and Regulation: Excerpt from Two Lessons book - Here’s another excerpt from my book-in-progress, Economics in Two Lessons. Rather than work sequentially, I’m jumping between: Lesson 1: Market prices reflect and determine opportunity costs faced by consumers and producers. and Lesson 2: Market prices don’t reflect all the opportunity costs we face as a society. In the section over the fold, I’m looking at monopoly and regulation. Next up, public ownership. As usual, praise is welcome, useful criticism even more so. You can find a draft of the opening sections here. A crucial requirement of Lesson 1 is that prices are determined in competitive markets. But free markets are not necessarily competitive. If the technology of production involves economies of scale, as is the case for most kinds of manufacturing and many services, large firms will have lower average costs than small ones. Over time, therefore, the number of firms will shrink through exits or mergers, until economies of scale are exhausted. In the limiting, but not unrealistic, case of natural monopoly, unrestrained competition will lead to the emergence of a single dominant firm. Once a firm attains a dominant position, it can hold that position for a long time, even after any initial advantages have disappeared. Suppliers and dealers can be locked into long term contracts. If vital parts are produced to a standard design, patents over those parts can be used to exclude competitors. As an example, the AT&T Bell monopoly in the United States required that only phones made by its subsidiary, Western Electric, could be connected to its network. This and other restrictions excluded all competition for decades. In a natural monopoly industry, production by a single firm is technically efficient. But the price that maximises profits will be higher than the opportunity cost of production. Some of the potential benefits of technical efficiency will be lost, while the bulk of what remains will go to the monopolist rather than to consumers [in a very simple model of monopoly pricing, the monopolist gets half of the potential benefits from the supply of the good, consumers get a quarter and the remaining quarter is lost because of the divergence between price and opportunity cost] The situation is even worse where monopoly is maintained through costly devices used to exclude competitors. Not only will prices be higher than opportunity costs, they will exceed the competitive market price. Even the monopolist will dissipate much of its profit in its efforts to exclude competitors (Tullock). These problems first emerged on a large scale in the late 19th century, as the growth of rail networks made it possible, and profitable, for firms to operate on a national scale. The railways themselves were one of the most important industries in which the benefits of scale economies, along with the appeal of potential monopoly profits, led to an rash of mergers. These mergers were often undertaken using a legal device known as a ‘trust’, and the term came to be applied to monopolies and cartels in general. The most famous trust was John D Rockefeller’s Standard Oil company, which secured a near-monopoly (88 per cent in 1890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil) over the refined oil market. One of Standard Oil’s main advantages was the capacity to secure lower prices from railway companies in return for higher volumes. The initial response, commonly referred to as ‘trustbusting’ involved breaking up large corporations into separate firms that were expected to compete against one another. Standard Oil was broken into 34 firms, the most successful of which were the Standard Oil Company of New York (later Mobil) and Standard Oil of New Jersey (later Exxon). Under the influence of the Chicago school of economics, trustbusting policies were gradually abandoned in the late 20th century. The last big corporate breakup was that of the former AT&T telephone monopoly in the 1970s. The shifting in thinking was symbolised by the 1999 merger of Exxon and Mobil to produce one of the largest corporations in the world, comparable in many ways to Standard Oil. The logic of opportunity cost applies here, as usual. Breaking up monopolies reduces the extent of monopoly power, at the cost of forgoing opportunities for improved scale economies arising from mergers. For much of the 20th century, the loss of scale economies was seen as an acceptable price to pay to keep monopoly in check. However, with the resurgence of free market ideas from the 1970s onwards, support for antitrust policies waned. The last big example of trustbusting was the breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly, which took place in 1982 after nearly a decade of litigation. As trustbusting has declined, attention has turned to various forms of regulation. The core idea of regulation is to fix the prices charged by monopolies at levels that reflect the opportunity cost of resources used in production, but not to allow the extraction of monopoly profits. In practice this balance has proved hard to achieve. The common result has been that regulated monopolies have been highly profitable. One illustration of this is the fact that the ‘asset base’ of a regulated monopoly is typically valued at around 40 per cent more than the cost of its provision, as estimated by the regulator. This asset base premium reflects the fact that the regulated price is more than the opportunity cost of the resources used in production. Regulation constrains the exploitation of monopoly power but it entails compliance and enforcement costs and may prevent firms and consumers from reaching bargains that are mutually beneficial. Where a natural monopoly business involves large scale investment, it may prove difficult to set a price that accurately reflects opportunity costs, while providing incentives for efficient investment. The crucial trade-offs involve the distribution of income and property rights. To encourage appropriate levels of investment, it is desirable to offer high rates of return. However, this implies that monopoly profits will be enhanced at the expense of the community as a whole. One solution, discussed in the next section, is public ownership.16 Dec
New-ish Crime Writers — the East Coast - Well, the big news is that the new Tana French (The Trespasser) and the new Peter Robinson (When the Music’s Over) are both out and both brilliant. Now to the East Coast; a study in contrasts. First we have Ellie Griffith’s Ruth Galloway novels. The heroine is an archeologist at what seems like a rather shambolic new University on the Norfolk coast; her cases all involve old bones of some sort, but the murders are, mostly, reasonably recent. The world is about as cozy as you’ll find in new crime fiction; people basically like each other though you may not like the central cop, a self-absorbed Lancastrian who is partly redeemed for the reader by the mysterious liking that an oddly named Druid who works in a technical capacity at the University (yep) has for him. The plots are satisfying, the writing fluent, the characters predictable but (with the exception of the cop) broadly likeable. They’ll each take you a few hours to read—frivolous fun, like a Cosmo. Warning (which MIGHT be a minor spoiler): as with Sophie Hannah, but more so, the first book will make you anxious that the supernatural is going to play some sort of explanatory role—its ok, it doesn’t. Start with The Crossing Places . David Mark’s Detective Sergeant Aector McAvoy books do not resemble a cosmo at all. Set in Hull, they are as dark as you imagine the worst winter day being there—in fact, I only know Hull through these novels, and I don’t think that I have once imagined sunshine there. It’s noir, without relief. The villains are evil and ruthless and some of the cops no better. McAvoy starts the series as an officer suffering the consequences of whistle-blowing on some sort of corruption in the force. He’s lucky to be under the protection of a capable senior officer, Trish Pharaoh, and also to have a spouse who is (I think implausibly) adoring and understanding. But the plots are satisfying, and after the first novel, The Dark Winter, McAvoy grew on me quite a bit. Through several of the novels we see the emergence of a shadowy and apparently invincible organized crime syndicate, which Pharaoh and McAvoy are required to deal with, if not defeat. Mark is excellent with minor characters and subplots, and presents a world which, despite (or maybe because of) the prevalence of evil, is much less black and white than most crime writers prefer. Highly recommended if you have a reasonable tolerance for particularly vicious murders. IS there a series set in Lowestoft? Or Southwold?15 Dec

DoD Buzz

Turning Up Heat on F-35, Trump Hints at F/A-18E/F Buy - President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday fired another shot at Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and hinted at the possibility of a renewed competition with rival defense contractor Boeing Co. “Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!” he tweeted on Thursday evening. The market reaction was swift. Lockheed shares tumbled 1.7 percent while Boeing’s climbed 0.6 percent, according to a report by CNBC within an hour of Trump’s message. The timing of Trump’s latest criticism of the F-35 program — the Pentagon’s largest acquisition effort at nearly $400 billion to buy almost 2,500 of the single-engine fighters for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — was again noteworthy. It came a day after the president-elect met during separate meetings at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida with Lockheed Chief Executive Officer Marillyn Hewson and Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who oversees the F-35 program, among other top Pentagon acquisition officials. Trump the same day met with Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg, who after facing similar criticism from the president-elect for the $4 billion estimated cost of the Air Force One program to develop two or possible three of specially modified 747s pledged to reduce the cost of the effort. Lockheed didn’t immediately respond. Boeing tweeted, “Ready to work with @realDonaldTrump’s administration to affordably meet U.S. military requirements.” In an email, company spokesman Todd Blecher said, “We have committed to working with the president elect and his administration to provide the best capability, deliverability and affordability across all Boeing products and services to meet our national security needs.” Of course, Trump doesn’t seem to be taking into account the technological differences between the fourth-generation and fifth-generation fighter aircraft. The Boeing-made F/A-18E/F Super Hornet doesn’t offer the same level of stealth or sensor technology as the F-35, though the Chicago-based aerospace giant has previously argued that the capabilities of the twin-engine electronic attack variant EA-18G Growler eclipse the Joint Strike Fighter’s stealth advantage. And, of course, the Super Hornet is significantly cheaper. Even so, Trump may be taking a page from the playbook of Canada, whose government under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently opted to abandon the F-35 in favor of the F/A-18. Last month, Canada announced it is in negotiations to buy 18 Super Hornet fighter jets, a blow to the Joint Strike Fighter program, which was originally envisioned to replace Canada’s 30-plus-year-old CF-18 Hornet fleet. RELATED: Canada to Buy Super Hornets as F-35 Hits Setbacks Canada had been in discussions for years to purchase about 60 F-35s, but lawmakers had apparently grown weary of setbacks and delays in the program. In June, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the aircraft one that “does not work and is far from working.” Compare that to what Trump said during a speech last week in Pennsylvania: “How about the F-35 fighter? It’s a disaster, it’s totally out of control. So we’re going to get more equipment for our military and we’re going to get better equipment for our military at a smaller price.” A smaller price tag may not be out of the question. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James earlier this week acknowledged the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program remains an issue. The Pentagon estimates it will spend nearly $400 billion to procure 2,457 of the single-engine fighters — and some $1.5 trillion in lifetime sustainment costs. “Can the costs be driven down more? Perhaps,” James said during a speech at an Atlantic Council event, adding that the president-elect may search for other ways to find a better deal for taxpayers. The Pentagon in November handed down a Low Rate Initial Production contract to Lockheed Martin last month for 57 more F-35s under a $6.1 billion deal — a decision that Lockheed criticized as disappointing and unfair because it didn’t address manufacturing issues, such as risk assessment and delivery schedules. It’s no secret the F-35 has had “a difficult past” plagued by breakdowns, cost overruns and other embarrassing mishaps, she said. “But if you look at the recent years, the F-35 the cost has been coming down,” she added, noting the per-plane price tag of the fifth-generation fighter will soon approach that of fourth-generation models. 22 Dec
Did Trump Tweets Just Lower the Cost of Air Force One? - Did President-elect Donald Trump’s tweetstorm criticizing the projected costs of the future Air Force One planes just lower the price tag of the program? A member of his transition team seems to think so. “Boeing CEO tells President-elect @realDonaldTrump it will build new Air Force One for less than originally-quoted $4b,” Anthony Scaramucci, a member of Trump’s transition team’s executive committee tweeted on Wednesday. “Big win for taxpayers.” The message came after Trump met with Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg at the president-elect’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Indeed, that apparently was the gist of the conversation. Here’s what Muilenburg told reporters as he was leaving the estate: “We’re going to get it done for less than that, and we’re committed to working together to make sure that happens,” he said,” referring to the Air Force One program, according to Bloomberg News. “I was able to give the president-elect my personal commitment on behalf of the Boeing Company.” This obviously raises a number of questions. First off, exactly how fungible are these estimated acquisition costs? Is there that much padding built in to the initial price tag that, at the snap of a finger — or a tweet — the expenses can just fall to levels considered more reasonable to an incoming president? In a tweet earlier this month and seemingly out of the blue, Trump bashed the Air Force One program, saying, “Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!” Boeing rushed out a response, saying it has only received $170 million so far in development funding to study the technical requirements of the future Air Force One aircraft, specially designed versions of the 747 airliner designed to withstand missile attacks and electromagnetic pulses. But Trump’s figure was more or less accurate. Todd Harrison, director of the aerospace security project and defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington, D.C., at the time said the proposed cost for the program includes $2.9 billion in funding for research, development, test and evaluation through fiscal 2021, as well as about $1 billion in funding for procurement. Air Force leaders also have vowed support for the program, which calls for developing two or possibly three new Air Force One planes. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James on Tuesday said of the aircraft, “It’s a flying White House, with ultra-high levels of security and communications and defensive protection measures built-in,” she said. Trump has since also targeted the Lockheed Martin Corp.-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — the Pentagon’s most expensive acquisition program estimated to cost nearly $400 billion to procure 2,457 of the single-engine fighters. Also Monday, the president-elect met with a number of high-ranking Pentagon officials, according to Bloomberg’s Tony Capaccio. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who manages the F-35 program, on Monday directly responded to Trump’s criticism when he told reporters, “This program is not out of control.” Trump also met with Lockheed Chief Executive Officer Marillyn Hewson and, according to Time magazine’s Zeke Miller, said of the planned get-together, “We’re just beginning, it’s a dance.” In a statement, Hewson said, “I had a productive meeting with President-elect Trump this afternoon. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the importance of the F-35 program and the progress we’ve made in bringing the costs down. The F-35 is a critical program to our national security, and I conveyed our continued commitment to delivering an affordable aircraft to our U.S. military and our allies.” 21 Dec
F-35’s $400K Helmet Still Blinds Pilots on Night Flights - A software fix designed to make the F-35 Joint Strike fighter’s state-of-the-art helmet easier to use for Navy and Marine Corps pilots landing on ships at night is still falling short of the mark, the program executive officer for the F-35 Joint Program Office said Monday. One discovery made as the F-35C Navy carrier variant and F-35B Marine Corps “jump jet” variant wrapped up ship testing this year was that the symbology on the pricey helmet was still too bright and distracting for pilots landing on carriers or amphibious ships in the lowest light conditions, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told reporters. During the final developmental test phase for the F-35C aboard the carrier George Washington in August, officials told Military.com they were testing a new software load specifically designed to address this “green glow” problem, which can make it difficult for pilots to detect outside light sources and the cues they need to land their aircraft safely. While testers were hopeful at the time the problem was solved, Bogdan said officials are not yet satisfied. “The symbology on the helmet, even when turned down as low as it can, is still a little too bright,” he said. “We want to turn down that symbology so that it’s not so bright that they can’t see through it to see the lights, but if you turn it down too much, then you start not being able to see the stuff you do want to see. We have an issue there, there’s no doubt.” Bogdan said the military plans on pursuing a hardware fix for the helmet, which is designed to stream real-time information onto the visor and allow the pilots to “see through” the plane by projecting images from cameras mounted around the aircraft. But before that fix is finalized, he said, pilots of the F-35 B and C variants will make operational changes to mitigate the glare from the helmet. These may including adjusting the light scheme on the aircraft, altering how pilots communicate during night flights, and perhaps changing the way they use the helmet during these flights, he said. “We’re thinking in the short term we need to make some operational changes, and in the long term we’ll look for some hardware changes,” Bogdan said. The window for making such adjustments is rapidly closing. The first F-35B squadron is expected to move forward to its new permanent base in Japan in January ahead of a 2018 shipboard deployment in the Pacific. The F-35C is also expected to deploy aboard a carrier for the first time in 2018.   20 Dec
SecAF Defends Air Force One as ‘Flying White House’ - Responding to President-elect Donald Trump’s criticism of a new Air Force One, the service’s top civilian defended the proposed aircraft as a “flying White House.” While acknowledging the high cost of the program, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James on Monday made a point to explain how the planes aren’t typical 747 airliners made by Boeing Co. “It’s a flying White House, with ultra-high levels of security and communications and defensive protection measures built in,”  James said during a speech at an Atlantic Council event in Washington, D.C. Trump over the past few weeks has criticized the high cost of both the $4 billion Air Force One program being developed by Boeing and the nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. The president-elect on Dec. 6 tweeted “cancel order!” in reference to the Air Force One program. He brought up the issue again during a Dec. 16 speech in Pennsylvania. “I don’t want a plane to fly around in that costs $4.2 billion, believe me … not going to happen … and I didn’t order it, please, remember this,” he said. “But we’re going to work with Boeing, we’re going to cut the price way down — way, way down.” Boeing has so far received $170 million in development funding to study the technical requirements of the future Air Force One aircraft, the company has said. And at least one defense analyst has pointed out the overall estimate includes the cost of two planes, both of which would operate as a flying command post in an emergency and feature advanced technology such as protection from electromagnetic pulse attacks. RELATED: Defense Lobby’s Answer to Trump? Don’t Tweet Back James noted that the technical requirements for the plane were drawn up by the White House, not the Air Force. “Maybe if you change some of the requirements you can get the costs down,” she said. The secretary also defended the F-35, which she said “sells itself” to allies desperate to field fifth-generation fighter jet technology. Even so, she acknowledged the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program remains an issue. The Pentagon estimates it will spend nearly $400 billion to procure 2,457 of the single-engine fighters — and some $1.5 trillion in lifetime sustainment costs. “Can the costs be driven down more? Perhaps,” James said, adding that the president-elect may search for other ways to find a better deal for taxpayers. The Pentagon in November handed down a Low Rate Initial Production contract to Lockheed Martin last month for 57 more F-35s under a $6.1 billion deal — a decision that Lockheed criticized as disappointing and unfair because it didn’t address manufacturing issues, such as risk assessment and delivery schedules. It’s no secret the F-35 has had “a difficult past” plagued by breakdowns, cost overruns and other embarrassing mishaps, she said. “But if you look at the recent years, the F-35 the cost has been coming down,” she added, noting the per-plane price tag of the fifth-generation fighter will soon approach that of fourth-generation models. Above all, NATO allies and others are clamoring for the technology, James said. “If you look at the various scenarios where we may have to go into combat around the world … it’s the high-end threats, the anti-access area denial environments, the threats that sell this capability,” she said, referring to such countries as Russia and China. 20 Dec
Gates Praises Obama’s Restraint on Use of Military Force - Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a persistent critic of the Obama administration on Syria, Iran, Russia and “micromanaging” the Pentagon, had grudging praise for President Barack Obama’s overall restraint on the use of military force during his eight years in office. “I think that there have been some very real achievements in the military with President Obama,” Gates said Sunday on NBC-TV’s “Meet The Press” program.” “I think that he has managed a difficult situation where the American people were tired of war — 14, 15 years of war — and how do we conduct ourselves so that we don’t send troops to deal with every single problem around the world,” Gates said. Gates, a Republican who served as defense secretary for former President George W. Bush and continued into the Obama administration, noted his differences with Obama on Libya and setting a “red line” with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the use of chemical weapons. “I certainly was opposed to the intervention in Libya,” Gates said. “I said, ‘Can’t I just finish the two wars I’m already in (Iraq and Afghanistan) before you go looking for a third one?'” “And I frankly think that he’s made several big mistakes on Syria, beginning with the crossing of the red line — first of all, putting down a red line and then allowing, you know, allowing it to be crossed,” Gates said. “But I think that in terms of not engaging — not sending U.S. forces to deal with every single problem around the world – (that) was a needed antidote to 15 years of war,” Gates said. At the same time, Gates said that restraint had its downside in encouraging aggression by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Syria, Crimea and Ukraine. “I think it sent a signal that the U.S. was in retreat,” he said. “It was always going to be complicated to withdraw from those wars without victory without sending the signal we were withdrawing more broadly from a global leadership role,” Gates said. “I think some of the things that have been done have accentuated that impression around the world. And I think Putin felt that he could take advantage of that.” During the campaign, Gates denounced President-elect Donald Trump as “unqualified” to be commander-in-chief, but he has since met with Trump and reportedly was influential in the choice of ExxonMobil chief Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. In a September op-ed for the Wall St. Journal, Gates wrote that Trump was “stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.” In his first post-election interview on Nov. 30 with “CBS This Morning,” Gates changed course and said he was “hoping” he was wrong about Trump. “It’s critical for us now that he is President-elect for him to be successful as president, especially in national security.” On “Meet The Press” Sunday, Gates was at odds with Trump’s dismissal thus far of the CIA and FBI conclusions that Russia attempted to influence the election by hacking the Democratic National Committee. Gates also said that the Russian hacking appeared to be aimed at hurting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Gates, the former CIA Director under President George H.W. Bush, said of the Russian hacking that “I would characterize it as a thinly disguised, covert operation intended to discredit the American election and to basically allow the Russians to communicate to the rest of the world that our elections are corrupt, incompetent, rigged, whatever, and therefore no more honest than anybody else’s in the world, including theirs.” “Whether or not it was intended to help one another candidate, I don’t know. But I think it clearly was aimed at discrediting our elections and I think it was aimed certainly at weakening Mrs. Clinton,” Gates said. 19 Dec
Trump Blasts Air Force One, F-35 — and Revolving Door - President-elect Donald Trump used a speech last night in Pennsylvania to criticize major defense acquisition programs including Boeing Co.’s Air Force One and Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — and the Pentagon officials who leave government to take jobs in the defense industry. “We are going to negotiate tougher deals … where we get more equipment for less money,” he said on Thursday. “For instance, you saw the other day about an airplane. Now I have a nice airplane. But this plane is going to cost $4.2 billion, Air Force One. I don’t want a plane to fly around in that costs $4.2 billion, believe me … not going to happen … and I didn’t order it, please, remember this. But we’re going to work with Boeing, we’re going to cut the price way down — way, way down.” He added, “And how about the F-35 fighter. It’s a disaster, it’s totally out of control. So we’re going to get more equipment for our military and we’re going to get better equipment for our military at a smaller price.” Trump has previously blasted both acquisition programs. Last week, Trump took to Twitter to attack the projected costs of a new Air Force One —  criticism that came the day the Aerospace Industries Association — the defense lobby — was holding its annual holiday luncheon outside Washington, D.C. Boeing said it has only received $170 million in development funding to study the technical requirements of the future Air Force One aircraft. Todd Harrison, director of the aerospace security project and defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington, D.C., has said the proposed cost for the program includes $2.9 billion in funding for research, development, test and evaluation through fiscal 2021, as well as about $1 billion in funding for procurement. “To be clear, it’s $4B for two planes that operate as a flying command post for POTUS in a national emergency, have EMP protection, etc.,” he tweeted at the time, referring to electromagnetic pulse. On Monday, Trump launched another Tweetstorm, this one aimed the military’s largest acquisition program: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is expected to cost nearly $400 billion in development and procurement costs to field a fleet of 2,457 single-engine fighters — and some $1.5 trillion in lifetime sustainment costs, according to Pentagon figures. During his speech last night, Trump also vowed to “drain the swamp” in part by closing the so-called revolving door of Pentagon employees who leave government to take jobs in the private sector. “I will impose a five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists and a lifetime ban on officials becoming lobbyists for a foreign government,” he said. “And I’ll tell you what else I’m going to ban — when we have our purchasing agents giving out billions and billions and billions of dollars of contracts to the military and to all of these people where they’re buying these airplanes where you see these tremendous cost overruns — take a look at the F-35 program, take a look — and the people that gave out those contracts, give me a break, we’re going to impose a lifetime ban on people that give these massive contracts out or even small contracts.” He added, “You want to work for the United States, you work for the United States. You’re not going to go to work for the people that built these planes.” In perhaps the most obvious recent example of the revolving door, the U.S. Air Force‘s former chief of staff, retired Gen. Mark Welsh, recently joined the board of directors for Northrop Grumman Corp., the company announced last week. The move came just five months after Welsh retired as the service’s top uniformed officer and a little more than a year after Northrop won the biggest Pentagon contract in decades — to begin developing the B-21 Raider as part of the potentially $80 billion Long Range Strike Bomber, or LRSB, program. 16 Dec
Boeing to Move Defense Unit from St. Louis to DC Region - The world’s largest aerospace company is moving its defense division to the Washington, D.C., region at a time when Pentagon defense spending has entered a new era of scrutiny from many corners, including President-elect Donald Trump. Boeing Co. next month will relocate its Defense, Space & Security division from St. Louis to its northern Virginia offices in Crystal City, spokesman Todd Blecher confirmed to Military.com. The news was first reported by DefenseOne. “We are making the move to enhance our ability to engage with leaders of our customers in the Pentagon and NASA, as well as key decision makers on the Hill and in the presidential administration,” Blecher said in a statement. The move is the biggest for the division after it merged with McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis in 1997. The news comes weeks after Leanne Caret, the president and chief executive officer of the unit, was weighing future options to spend more time inside the beltway to meet with Pentagon officials and lawmakers, DefenseOne previously reported. At first, “approximately a dozen people will move here from St. Louis, including [Caret],” Blecher said. “Over time that total could increase to more than 50 people.” Boeing, whose defense contracting business is second only to Lockheed Martin Corp., will continue to have about 14,000 employees in the St. Louis area, Blecher said. RELATED: Defense Lobby’s Answer to Trump? Don’t Tweet Back Boeing has unwittingly been in the public eye recently after Trump blasted the company on Twitter over potential prices of the new Air Force One aircraft. “Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion,” he tweeted last week. “Cancel order!” Many took issue with Trump’s use of the $4 billion figure to describe the overall cost of the program. While the figure wasn’t that far off from the total estimated value, it’s worth noting the company hasn’t received anywhere close to that amount yet — and the total figure includes funding for two airplanes designed to withstand electromagnetic attacks and other doomsday scenarios. RELATED: In Bashing Air Force One Costs, Trump Targets Defense Spending The remarks caught many industry observers by surprise considering he proposed a Reagan-like military buildup during his campaign. Boeing attempted to settle the dust. “We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the president of the United States,” Blecher said in an emailed statement at the time. “We look forward to working with the U.S. Air Force on subsequent phases of the program allowing us to deliver the best planes for the president at the best value for the American taxpayer,” he added. Michael Hertzog, a spokesman for the Air Force, said for research and development costs, the service has budgeted $2.7 billion (as opposed to $2.9 billion) in the latest spending plan. He said that figure could change “as the program matures with the completion of the risk reduction activities.” Hertzog didn’t specify a figure for procurement costs. The post Boeing to Move Defense Unit from St. Louis to DC Region appeared first on DoD Buzz. 13 Dec
Market Rocked After Trump Criticizes F-35 Program in Tweet - Donald Trump is bent on reforming government spending, one tweet at a time. This morning just before 9a.m., the president-elect lashed out at the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program on Twitter, promising to change the game after he enters office. “The F-35 program and cost is out of control,” he tweeted. “Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.” Though Trump did not clearly state what he planned to do after he becomes president, the tweet sent ripples across the defense community and had an immediate impact on the stock market value of Lockheed Martin Corp., the manufacturer of the F-35. Within hours of the tweet, the company’s stock had dropped more than 4 percent, multiple outlets reported, for a loss in value of more than $4 billion so far. While the F-35 program has long been held up as an example of acquisition malpractice, with years of delays and budget overruns, defense officials and Lockheed executives have struck an optimistic note this year as three U.S. F-35 variants hit final milestones ahead of their first deployments. In March, F-35 program manager Jeff Babione told reporters that F-35A unit cost may drop from roughly $100 million per plane today to $85 million by 2019, dependent in part on an international block buy that would drive costs down due to economies of scale. Trump’s tweet on the F-35 comes six days after he targeted defense giant Boeing in a tweet about costs for Air Force One, the president’s private plane. “Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!” he wrote. Lockheed Martin officials have said they plan to respond to Trump’s tweet about the F-35 later today.   The post Market Rocked After Trump Criticizes F-35 Program in Tweet appeared first on DoD Buzz. 12 Dec
Former Air Force Chief of Staff Joins Northrop - The revolving door of retired military generals headed to defense contractors continues to spin. The U.S. Air Force‘s former chief of staff, retired Gen. Mark Welsh, has joined the board of directors for Northrop Grumman Corp., the company announced Thursday. The move comes just five months after Welsh retired as the service’s top uniformed officer and a little more than a year after Northrop won the biggest Pentagon contract in decades — to begin developing the B-21 Raider as part of the potentially $80 billion Long Range Strike Bomber, or LRSB, program. “His extensive leadership experience and deep understanding of global security are a great fit to our board, and we are excited about the contributions he will make as Northrop Grumman employees around the globe work to create value for our customers and shareholders,” Wes Bush, the company’s chief executive officer, said in a statement. Welsh, currently the dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, served as the Air Force’s chief of staff from 2012 until this summer. He’ll be the 14th member of Northrop’s board, joining 13 independent directors, the company said. The release didn’t specify how much Welsh will be paid. Of Northrop’s 12 board members who received compensation in 2015, the average amount was $260,621, with a minimum of $102,916 and a maximum of $314,142, according to the proxy statement accompanying the company’s annual report. During his time on the joint staff, Welsh advocated for new aircraft to modernize the Air Force’s aging fleet. “The platforms and systems that made us great over the last 50 years will not make us great over the next 50,” he said during Feb. 10 testimony before lawmakers. “There are many other systems we need to either upgrade or recapitalize to ensure viability against current and emerging threats … the only way to do that is to divest old capability to build the new.” Around that time, the service unveiled its first prototype design graphic of the B-21. Northrop in October 2015 beat out Boeing Co., the world’s largest aerospace company, and Lockheed Martin Corp., the world’s largest defense contractor, for the $21.4 billion initial contract as part of the LRSB program. The Air Force plans to buy 100 of the new bombers from Northrop Grumman, which manufactured the B-2 Spirit, to replace its fleet of B-52 Stratofortresses and a portion of its fleet of B-1 Lancers. Not many details have been shared about the B-21. And the Air Force’s photos of the Raider mock-up have critics grumbling that the future bomber closely resembles the B-2. The post Former Air Force Chief of Staff Joins Northrop appeared first on DoD Buzz. 9 Dec
Defense Lobby’s Answer to Trump? Don’t Tweet Back - When President-elect Donald Trump took to Twitter this week to attack the projected costs of a new Air Force One — an aircraft still years away from production — it left defense and industry officials puzzled, to say the least. Many took issue with Trump’s use of the $4 billion figure to describe the overall cost of the program. While the figure wasn’t that far off, it’s worth noting the amount includes two airplanes designed to withstand electromagnetic attacks and other doomsday scenarios. More importantly, Trump’s latest Tweetstorm triggered a conversation among industry officials over how to address spur-of-the-moment commentary from the next POTUS. “This is a relatively new phenomenon,” said David Melcher, chief executive officer of Aerospace Industries Association. “I know the right answer is not going to be: ‘Tweet back,'” Melcher joked as he addressed press and officials after AIA’s annual media luncheon on Tuesday outside Washington, D.C. Melcher applauded Boeing Co.’s official statement to the tweet, which he said addressed current, hard facts. “We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the president of the United States,” Todd Blecher, a spokesman for Boeing, said in a statement in response. RELATED: In Bashing Air Force One Costs, Trump Targets Defense Spending AIA as a whole, Melcher said, needs to “speak as the collective voice of all of our companies on issues we think are important across the industry, and not to try to respond or react to today’s tweet, or tomorrow’s tweet or anything else.” “I think our response would be in line with Boeing’s which is, let’s just look at the facts of this … What’s tweeted today is not necessarily going to be the policy of tomorrow,” he said. But Melcher did point out if a Defense Department program is too restrictive causing costs to bubble, then it is something that “should be reexamined” — something the industry has taken heat for. For example, the F-35 program, already the most expensive U.S. weapons program at nearly $400 billion, may still need another $500 million to finish development, according to reports from Bloomberg last month. The request would go into the 2018 defense budget proposal. Aviation programs aren’t the only ones under the microscope. Lawmakers on Tuesday said they’re mulling over a hearing to address the latest reports from The Washington Post that the Pentagon reportedly buried a study exposing $125 billion — $25 billion a year over five years  — in administrative waste. Addressing the report, Melcher said, “I think any organization in this nation being the government or industry or corporate has the potential to cut three, four percent out of defense spending,” within its overhead. “I could tell you defense contracting companies are a pretty lean lot these days. I think our corporations are pretty lean, and I think the governments are not as lean,”  he said. Like anything else, it’s for the department to decide, “what do we want to do with this and what changes do they want to make.” Company outsourcing will most likely take a hit, given that Trump has, on Twitter no less, addressed the practice as “wrong.” How this affects defense is yet to be seen. Melcher said capabilities that relate to national security and defense, “most of them are jobs in the United States, manufacturing operations in the United States.” “Some of the bigger companies have manufacturing operations” in various nations, he added. “I think they were principally bought because they couldn’t repatriate capital … and so they tried to use it in an effective or efficient way, bought an overseas company in order to [get into] different markets, but we’re principally a U.S.-based industry.” The AIA head said he doesn’t foresee a lot of change otherwise to how the U.S. business model works on the defense side, though some companies may address their commercial operations. The post Defense Lobby’s Answer to Trump? Don’t Tweet Back appeared first on DoD Buzz. 8 Dec

The Daily Sheeple

George Washington’s Advice to Us Now… - by Eric Zuesse George Washington’s final words to his fellow Americans when leaving the White House will soon again become a part of this country’s hot political debates, but the person who will be interpreting these words to today’s Americans will be an American aristocrat whose viewpoints are actually far more similar to those of the British redcoats that Washington killed during the Revolutionary War, than to the viewpoints of General Washington himself. John Avlon (former speechwriter for Rudolf Giuliani, and before that, schooled at Milton Academy and then Yale) is now the Editor-in-Chief of the rabidly anti-Russian — or «neoconservative» — ‘news’ (or propaganda) site «The Daily Beast». He will issue on January 10th, his book, Washington’s Farewell: The Founding Father’s Warning to Future Generations, which is an extended essay on President George Washington’s famous Farewell Address. Here, then, is a passage from that Address, in which our first (and — along with Lincoln and FDR, one of our three greatest) President(s) actually had warned us against the neoconservative path, which our nation has been on ever since 24 February 1990 and the end of the USSR and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance. That’s the path of wars (such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine) (which some wags call «perpetual war for perpetual peace») to conquer first all of Russia’s allies, and then finally (once Russia is thus thoroughly isolated), to conquer Russia itself — in other words, George Washington, when retiring from public life, warned us against Mr. Avlon’s website’s own neoconservative foreign-affairs obsession: eternal enmity against Russia (President Washington warned us, instead, to avoid eternal enmity against any nation, including Russia, as is indicated in this passage): Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Such «temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies» includes The Allies (England, Soviet Union and U.S.) during World War II, but certainly nothing after the Soviet Union and its communism and Warsaw Pact ended in 1991. The entire ‘Western Alliance’ — basically NATO plus Japan — is anti-American policies by the American aristocracy (controlling the U.S. Government) after 1991, and should therefore promptly terminate, and U.S. armed forces be withdrawn from all foreign countries, in accord with the will and intention of America’s democratic Founders including President Washington. Using the U.S. Defense Department, and the U.S. Treasury Department, as (which neoconservatives do) a vast welfare program for the super-wealthy owners of U.S. weapons-manufacturers and for U.S. and other mercenaries, is unauthorized by America’s Founders, and was explicitly condemned by George Washington. If any U.S.-based international corporations need those foreign U.S. military bases, then they should pick up all of the government’s tab to pay for them, because that kind of ‘capitalism’ is mere imperialism, which is nothing that any of our Founding Fathers advocated — it’s un-American, in terms of the U.S. Constitution and the men who wrote it. As Alexander Hamilton wrote on 9 January 1796, in defending the new Constitution, and especially its Treaty Clause: «I aver, that it was understood by all to be the intent of the provision [the Treaty Clause] to give to that power the most ample latitude to render it competent to all the stipulations, which the exigencies of National Affairs might require—competent to the making of Treaties of Alliance, Treaties of Commerce, Treaties of Peace and every other species of Convention usual among nations and competent in the course of its exercise to control & bind the legislative power of Congress. And it was emphatically for this reason that it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two thirds of the Senate with the President being required to make a Treaty. I appeal for this with confidence». He went further: «It will not be disputed that the words ‘Treaties and alliances’ are of equivalent import and of no greater force than the single word Treaties. An alliance is only a species of Treaty, a particular of a general. And the power of ‘entering into Treaties,’ which terms confer the authority under which the former Government acted, will not be pretended to be stronger than the power ‘to make Treaties,’ which are the terms constituting the authority under which the present Government acts». So: there can be no doubt that the term «treaty» refers to any and all types of international agreements. This was the Founders’ clear and unequivocal intent. No court under this Constitution possesses any power to change that, because they can’t change history. Furthermore, the third President Thomas Jefferson said in his likewise-famous Inaugural Address, that there should be «Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none». Jefferson’s comment there was also a succinct tip-of-the-hat to yet another major concern that the Founders had regarding treaties — that by discriminating in favor of the treaty-partners, they also discriminate against non-partner nations, and so endanger «peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,» which was the Founders’ chief goal in their foreign policies. But, the Founders’ chief concern was the mere recognition that treaties tend to be far more «permanent» and «entangling» than any purely national laws. This was the main reason why treaties need to be made much more difficult to become laws, and so the two-thirds-of-Senate requirement for passing-into-law any treaty was instituted as the Treaty-Clause, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2. Though this thinking — avoidance of favoritism in America’s foreign policies — was pervasive amongst the creators of America’s democracy (or people’s republic), America’s newly developed aristocracy subsequently in the 20th Century targeted elimination of the two-thirds-of-Senate requirement, because it’s an impediment toward their re-establishing the aristocracy that the American Revolution itself had overthrown and replaced by this people’s republic. And, the big chance for the aristocracy to restore its position via an imperial President, and so to extend their empire beyond our own shores, came almost two hundred years after America’s founding; it came in 1974, which was when a law finally became passed by Congress allowing some treaties to emerge as U.S. law with only the normal 50%+1 majority in the Senate (unconstitutional though that is). Without that Nixonian law, George Herbert Walker Bush’s NAFTA wouldn’t have been able to become law under Bill Clinton in 1993, and Barack Obama’s TPP with Asia and TTIP with Europe wouldn’t have stood even a chance of becoming law in 2016. Both of Obama’s proposed mega-treaties were designed to isolate and weaken both Russia and China in international trade, but all that Obama ended up with, before his leaving office, was economic sanctions against Russia for its having accepted the desire of the vast majority of Crimeans to rejoin with Russia after Obama’s Ukrainian coup overthrew the democratically elected President of next-door Ukraine, who had received 75% of the vote within Crimea. Avlon’s website, as a mainstream neoconservative ‘news’ site, opposes both Donald Trump and Russia. They actually urge punishing Russia for Trump’s election! What would George Washington think about having a person (Avlon) so partisan against George Washington’s vision for our country as that, becoming the modern ‘interpreter’ of his famous Farewell Address? Would he like that? Related Reads Here Are the Real Reasons Why Another American Civil War Is Possible The War Against the People: Fear and Loathing in NY and DC What the MSM Isn’t Telling Us: A Real Journalist Warns us WWIII with Russia, China is Already Underway New Claim: Obama Threatened Putin on the “Red Phone” in October — “Mess with the vote, we will consider it an act of war” Video: Is This The Real Reason The West is Pushing War With Russia?   Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by Strategic Culture Foundation of www.strategic-culture.org. Strategic Culture Foundation provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.23 Dec
Ron Paul: What’s Missing from the Russian Hack Argument? - Without any proof or evidence being presented that Russia interfered with our election, we’re just seeing political grandstanding at this point by both President Obama and Secretary Clinton. Have you noticed that there’s never any mention or concern about Secretary Clinton having a private server in her home? If anything, that server would have made it much easier for Russia (or anyone else) to know what was going on with our government. I  discuss this, our CIA’s shenanigans, and much more below: Related Reads Senate Homeland Security Chairman: “The CIA refused to provide us with a briefing on the issue of Russian hacking” Ron Paul: ‘Fake News Comes From our Own Government’ Ron Paul Reveals The Real “Fake Media News List” Video: 5 Signs Russian Hacking Story Is Really Just Fake News Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by The Ron Paul Institute of ronpaulinstitute.org. The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home. The Institute mobilizes colleagues and collaborators of Dr. Paul’s to participate in a broad coalition to educate and advocate for fundamental changes in our foreign and domestic policy.23 Dec
Three Years Ago, Obama Signed a Law Allowing the Federal Government to Take over the Entire Media - by Don Wrightman There’s an insidious law for us to ponder, courtesy of Barack Obama. An online radio host pointed out back in 2013 that the law would grant the federal government huge power to saturate Americans with domestic propaganda at the taxpayer’s expense. “This law allows the federal government to have sweeping power to push television, radio, newspaper and social-media propaganda onto the U.S. public,” warned Michael Evans, host of America’s Voice Now. He said that the law would remove protection for Americans from the ideologies of Obama’s administration. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 was specifically what Evans was referring to; it was inserted into the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. A so-called anti-propaganda law formerly prevented the U.S. government’s broadcasting arm from reaching American viewers. On July 2, 2013, the implementation of the new reform marked an end to shielding Americans from government delivered programming. The government now had the green light to unleash thousands of hours of weekly government funded radio and television programming for domestic consumption. The U.S. government previously broadcast news and opinions to foreign countries through outlets like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. The new law allowed them to expand their broadcasting business to influence citizens within the U.S. America had been protected from this over the years, but all good things pre-Obama had to come to an end, right? “The types of information that we promulgate overseas to foreigners is disinformation. It is meant to confuse, distract, redirect. It is not meant to be an informative source of news,” Evans explained. “Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. There is already, for all intents and purposes, an organization in the United States that does this. It’s called MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News. They are an arm of propaganda. But if you think things were bad before with those groups, wait till you see what’s gonna come out of them now. They’ll be reporting government misinformation as factual news stories, and a gullible American public will swallow it hook, line and sinker.” Obama will also sign a bill to make alternative media illegal A new anti-Russian propaganda bill is now also to be signed into law. This bill will make it illegal to run an alternative media website in the United states. The purpose of the bill is to counteract measures by Russia to exert covert influence. It is also known as the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.” The definition of Russian influence includes references to so-called fake news websites, or any site deemed to be anti-establishment. If the bill makes it through the Senate, the internet will never be the same again. Related Reads Yes, US Government Propaganda Use Against American Citizens Is Officially Legal Now Here Comes the Ministry of Truth: The Senate Just Quietly Passed the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” What Is The Real Purpose Behind “Fake News” Propaganda? Propaganda: Staged Photos from Aleppo Show People Exactly What They Want to See This Christmas Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by NaturalNews Network of NaturalNews.com. The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books. The NaturalNews Network is not for sale, and does not accept money to cover any story (or to spike it). NaturalNews Network is what the news industry used to be, before it sold out to big business.23 Dec
Video: Is This The Real Reason The West is Pushing War With Russia? - by Vin Armani In this video, Vin Armani explains the real reason the West is risking war with Russia for regime change in Syria. HINT – It’s the same reason they sponsored a coup in Ukraine. And it’s why Russia has dug its heals in and is standing in the way. Check out the maps in the video. Watch the full broadcast here. Related Reads   Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by Activist Post of www.activistpost.com.23 Dec
Facebook Plans to Bury Alternative News - Editor’s Note: Because we always knew that “fake news” was really just another way of saying “alternative, independent news” that isn’t controllable and refuses to tow the establishment line. Facebook has decided to make it easier for Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News, the Associated Press, and PolitiFact to flag “fake news.” What this means is alternative news stories the establishment decides are fake will be pushed down in the Facebook newsfeed. “Facebook is giving fact-checking organizations a kind of power they’ve never had before: the power to publicly brand other websites’ stories as ‘disputed’ and push them down in Facebook users’ newsfeeds,” reports Vox. PolitiFact has been accused of bias and serious errors in judgment by critics on the right and left. The Knight Foundation, one of PolitiFact’s largest donors, gave $200,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Knight also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a journalism school owned by The Tampa Bay Times newspaper. It was also reported the International Fact-Checking Network financed by George Soros will be involved with the Facebook effort. It is hosted by the Poynter Institute and also funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy. NED’s founder said the organization does what the CIA did in the old days, namely take down disfavored governments and produce propaganda. Poynter also gets money from the Omidyar Network run by the billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The Omidyar Network has teamed up with Soros’ Open Society on projects and given grants to third parties using the Soros-funded Tides Foundation. Tides underwrites numerous progressive causes. Facebook will soon begin relegating alternative news stories to the bottom of the newsfeed where they are less likely to be viewed on the recommendations of these biased and establishment-linked organizations. This will be a significant development for many alternative media websites. For instance, my website receives a large share of referred traffic from Facebook. If Facebook users do not see my stories in their newsfeed, a lot less traffic will be driven to my website and this is exactly what Soros and the establishment want. Related Reads Snopes Wife Claims Husband Embezzled Thousands and Spent It on Prostitutes — But Hey, They’ll Tell Us What “Fake News” Is?! Facebook to Censor “Fake News” With Help from Fact Checkers Snopes, Politifact, ABC News, and WAPO’s Fact Checker What Is The Real Purpose Behind “Fake News” Propaganda? Video: 5 Signs Russian Hacking Story Is Really Just Fake News   Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by Kurt Nimmo of Another Day in the Empire. Kurt Nimmo is the editor of Another Day in the Empire, where this article first appeared. He is the former lead editor and writer of Infowars.com.23 Dec
Tennessee Man Gets $75 Check To “Restart His Life” After Being Wrongfully Imprisoned For 31 Years - In October 1977, a Memphis, Tennessee woman was raped in her home by two intruders. The woman subsequently identified one of the perpetrators as her neighbor, 22 year old Lawrence McKinney. One year later, McKinney was convicted on rape and burglary charges and sentenced to 115 years in prison. The only problem is that he didn’t do it. After spending 31 years in prison, DNA evidence cleared Mckinney of any wrongdoing in 2008 and he was later released in 2009 with a very “generous” check of $75 from the Tennessee Department of Corrections to help “restart his life.” To add insult to injury, McKinney told CNN that “because I had no ID it took me three months before I was able to cash it.” Now, a 61-year-old McKinney is asking Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam to exonerate him, a move that would clear a path to pursue up to $1 million in compensation from the state Board of Claims for 3 decades of wrongful imprisonment. The Tennessee Board of Parole, which makes recommendations to the governor on such issues, denied McKinney’s request for exoneration by a 7-0 vote at a hearing in September saying they could not “find clear and convincing evidence of innocence.” “The (parole) board reviewed all relevant information related to the crime, conviction and subsequent appeals, as well as all information provided by the petitioner,” said Melissa McDonald, spokesperson for the Tennessee Board of Parole. “After considering all of the evidence, the board did not find clear and convincing evidence of innocence and declined to recommend clemency in this matter.” One of McKinney’s attorneys, Jack Lowery, believes the decision should rest solely with Haslam. “The parole board is not qualified to make these decisions and should not,” he said. “For the parole board to step in when many (of them) are not trained in the law is ridiculous.” Apparently the parole board based their decision, in part, on McKinney’s admission to the 1977 burglary charge, an admission his lawyer at the time told him he needed to make if he wanted any shot at an early parole. According to John Hunn, McKinney’s pastor and most ardent supporter, the board cited a list of 97 infractions that McKinney incurred while he was in jail, including the alleged assault of a fellow inmate, who testified against McKinney at the hearing. McKinney told the board he’d been in prison for years, and that “only the strong survive,” Hunn said. Hunn testified at the hearing on McKinney’s behalf. “Lawrence has told that story at our church,” Hunn said. “He doesn’t deny that story. He was in prison, man.” The parole board also knew that 28 years into his sentence, McKinney admitted to the burglary charge he was convicted of. McKinney said his lawyers at the time told him that if he wanted any chance of being released early, he would need to admit to something. Despite being forced to waste more than half his life behind bars, McKinney says he’s not bitter and just wants to “be treated right and fair for what has happened to me.” “Although I’ve spent more than half of my life locked up for a crime I did not do, I am not bitter or angry at anyone, because I have found the Lord and married a good wife,” McKinney said. “All I ask is that I be treated right and fair for what has happened to me. I didn’t do nothing, and I just want to be treated right.” Perhaps the “commuter-in-chief” could take a little break from pardoning hardened drug dealers to help clear someone that seemingly actually deserves a break. Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by Zero Hedge of www.zerohedge.com.23 Dec
Christmas Canceled? Solar Storm Heading Toward Earth Could Shut Down Power Grids - Millions will be dreaming by the fire soon, but a special Christmas delivery could come early. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) forecasts a solar storm blasting Earth any day now, according to The Sun. A fast stream of solar wind has reportedly hit Earth’s magnetic field, generating a “moderately” strong geomagnetic storm which could last for several days, The Sun reported, citing the NOAA. Solar storms occur when plasma from the sun is blown toward Earth in a stream of supercharged particles. Most notably, these storms create the natural phenomenon known as the Northern Lights. However, the surge of electrons can also cause interference for electronic devices and navigation systems. The effects is similar to a massive electromagnetic pulse (EMP) caused by a nuclear weapon detonated in the sky. In October, President Barack Obama warned of the effects a solar storm can cause, saying, “space weather has the potential to simultaneously affect and disrupt health and safety across entire continents.” The last major solar storm happened in 1859. Called the Carrington Event, it was so strong that it shut down telegraph machines on two continents and allowed the northern lights to be visible in Africa, Australia, Latin America, and the US. Since then, US reliance on technology has made solar storms a far greater threat. The scientific journal Atmospheric Environmental estimated in 2013 that if a solar storm the size of the Carrington Event hit the Earth today, it could cause as much as $2.6 trillion dollars of damage to the US alone. Pete Riley, a senior researcher with Predictive Science, told APS Physics in March that the odds of a Carrington-like event in the next decade were around 10 percent. Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by RT.com of RT.com.23 Dec
Trumpocalypse? Suddenly Liberals Are The Ones Stockpiling Food, Guns And Emergency Supplies - Now that the shoe is on the other foot, many liberals all over America have suddenly become extremely interested in prepping. Fearing that a Trump presidency could rapidly evolve into a “Trumpocalypse”, a significant number of leftists are now stockpiling food, guns and emergency supplies. In fact, even though many had expected a sharp drop in gun sales following Trump’s victory, what actually happened is that fear of what is coming under Trump pushed background checks for gun sales to an all-time record high on Black Friday. The election of Donald Trump has awakened the left to a degree that we haven’t seen in decades, and some on the left are embracing hardcore survivalism without any apologies. What is ironic about all of this is that on the other end of the political spectrum interest in prepping is probably the lowest that it has ever been in the history of the modern prepper movement. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article about how it was like “a nuclear bomb went off in the prepping community“, and nothing has changed since that time. In fact, since I originally wrote that article we have gotten some hard numbers that show how dramatically optimism about the future has surged among those on the right. Just before the election, CNBC’s All-America Economic Survey found that only 15 percent of all Republicans believed that the economy would improve over the next year, but after the election that number skyrocketed all the way up to 74 percent. But among Democrats it is a different story altogether. That same CNBC survey found that optimism about the economy on the left fell by more than half after the election. At this point, it is sitting at just 16 percent. It would be hard to overstate how negatively many on the left feel about Trump. We have seen many of them take to the streets to angrily protest his election, and according to the BBC others have decided to stockpile food and guns “in preparation for social and economic collapse”… In America, stockpiling weapons and food, in preparation for social and economic collapse, has tended to be the preserve of right-wing libertarians and foes of “big government”. But the Liberal Prepper Facebook group – up to now a small band – reports a big increase in enquiries. “A lot of people are worried that not only will [a Trump presidency] fail but that it will fail spectacularly to the point that we are going to end up on in one or more critical situations that we are just not prepared for,” says Jeff, 36, one of the group’s members. So could we see “social and economic collapse” under Trump? Despite the wild optimism that we are seeing on the right at the moment, without a doubt this is a possibility. It is funny how a single election can change our perspective on things so dramatically. During the Obama years, it seemed like the left was constantly talking about disarming everyone, but now Trump has sparked a renewed interest in gun ownership among many liberals. Prominent progressive author Ana Marie Cox is just one example… Witness Ana Marie Cox, a popular progressive writer with gigs at MTV and the New York Times. “So who else has been researching basic disaster prep stuff?” she polled her Twitter audience on Wednesday. “Bc—congrats, right wingers—I do not trust the government to help anymore!” Her next tweet extended the holiday merriment to our nation’s Second Amendment enthusiasts: “Getting my rifle out of storage this week.” And did you know that leftists even have their own gun organization? It is known as “the Liberal Gun Club”, and since Trump’s victory it has experienced a huge surge in membership… Lara Smith, national spokesperson for the Liberal Gun Club, says her organization has seen a “huge” rise in enquiries since November’s election and a 10% increase in paid members. US gun sales hit record levels in October amid fears a Hillary Clinton election victory would lead to draconian gun control measures. The election of Donald Trump, who was backed by the National Rifle Association early on, was thought to bring an end to panic buying. Shares in gun manufacturers even dropped by as much as 18% following his victory. Instead, FBI background checks for gun transactions soared to a new record for a single day – 185,713 – during the Black Friday sales on 25 November, according to gun control news site The Trace. Many on the right have responded to Donald Trump’s election victory by deciding that the battle is over and that it is time to go to sleep. But many on the left have been suddenly awakened and are now preparing for extremely challenging times ahead. I hate to say this, but in this case those on the left that are busily preparing are showing much more wisdom than many on the right that have chosen to abandon prepping altogether at this point. Of course most of those on the left don’t really understand the storm that is approaching. All they know is that Trump is “really bad” and therefore they need to try to get through the next four years the best that they can. Here is more from the BBC… “We are not looking for end of the world Mad Max-type scenarios, we are not looking at a zombie apocalypse,” says the author of a left wing survivalist blog, who also reports a surge in interest since Trump’s victory. He says it is “fairly easy to predict” an economic collapse under Trump but adds: “No matter what, the country is still going to be here in four years, there’s going to be another election.” I would have to agree that a major economic downturn is quite likely in the very near future. We have been on the greatest debt binge in history during the Obama years, and it is inevitable that this bubble will burst. Donald Trump basically has two choices. He could try to prolong this debt bubble for as long as possible, but that would make the ultimate outcome even worse. Or he could try to deal with the crisis right away, but that would mean an extraordinary amount of pain for all of us. No matter who won the election, we were going to have to deal with the consequences of decades of incredibly foolish decisions sooner or later. Let us certainly hope for the best, but without a doubt those that are preparing for challenging times ahead are showing incredible wisdom, and this includes both liberals and conservatives. Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse. Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream , The Truth and Economic Collapse Blog. 23 Dec
VIDEO: Cop Assaults & Arrests Mom and Children Who Called 911 on Man Who Assaulted Her 7-yo Son - by Matt Agorist Fort Worth, TX — A video posted to Facebook Wednesday evening has quickly gone viral showing a Fort Worth cop involved in a violent arrest of a mother and her two teen daughters. The incident began when Jacqueline Craig called police alleging that her neighbor assaulted her 7-year-old son. Craig told police that the neighbor claimed he saw the 7-year-old throw a piece of trash on the ground and when her son refused to pick it up, the adult male began choking him. Yes, it is wrong to litter. However, choking someone else’s child over littering is most certainly not a just response. However, the cop could not have cared less about the assault as the first question out of his mouth is, “Why don’t you teach your son not to litter?” “It doesn’t matter if he did or didn’t. It doesn’t give him the right to put his hands on him,” explained Craig. “Why not?” callously replies the cop. At this point, after the officer implies that an adult assaulting a child is perfectly fine if litter is involved, the argument begins to escalate. The officer then says, “if you keep yelling at me you’re going to piss me off and I’m going to take you to jail.” As her daughter attempts to calm down the situation, all hell breaks loose, and the officer makes good on his threat. The video then cuts to Craig laying on the ground with the officer kneeling on her back. He has his taser out and points it at a small child and then at Craig’s daughter. The officer then handcuffs Craig and her 19-year-old. The cop then turns his attention to the person filming. He knocks the camera out of her hand and tells her, “you’re going to jail too!” Craig was arrested on charges of resisting arrest and failure to identify, according to court records. Brea Hymond, Craig’s 19-year-old daughter, was charged with resisting arrest and interfering with public duties. There are no records of the man who assaulted Craig’s 7-year-old son being arrested. On Thursday afternoon, Craig and her daughter were finally released. In a statement, Fort Worth police acknowledged the incident and noted that the officer involved has been placed on restricted duty pending the outcome of the investigation. “The investigators worked throughout the night and into the morning interviewing witnesses and reviewing video evidence; including video from a body worn camera that was active during the incident,” FWPD wrote. “Since this is an internal investigation, state law limits the information that may be released, including the officer’s body cam footage,” FWPD says. The department adds that it “enjoys a close and cooperative relationship” with citizens built on “transparency, mutual trust and respect,” and that it expects officers to treat citizens the same. “We ask that our investigators are given the time and opportunity to thoroughly examine this incident and to submit their findings. This process may take time, but the integrity of the investigation rests upon the ability of the investigators to document facts and to accurately evaluate the size and scope of what transpired. We ask our community for patience and calm during this investigation process.” Instead of helping a woman who called police for assistance in stopping a man who had attacked her small child, Fort Worth Police assaulted her. This family needed help and got brutality instead. This is the reason there is a growing mistrust of police in America. Warning: Profanity Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by The Free Thought Project of thefreethoughtproject.com. The Free Thought Project is dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable.23 Dec
The Greatness of Your Freedom - These are notes I made prior to putting together my second collection, Exit From The Matrix, which contains a large series of exercises designed to increase creative power: “You need to start from the recognition of your freedom. That’s the open door. Everything flows from there. If you believe you aren’t free, or can’t be, then things shut down. Then you’re working on a grossly limited scale.” “Freedom is something you perceive, something you take, something you assume. It’s Possibility here and there and everywhere. Societies and civilizations aren’t built, beyond a certain point, to encourage possibility. They’re built to be systems.” “What is freedom for? Colleges, if they were so inclined (and they aren’t), could build four-year curricula around that single question. Freedom is certainly a quality that pertains to the individual. You. Freedom implies invention, imagination. It’s the field in which imagination operates. It’s the field all sorts of people, for various reasons, want to shut down. Those people are misaligned, mistaken, and misguided. They propose ideas that are immediately limiting. The trick is to contemplate ideas that aren’t limiting at all.” “Freedom is a greatness. It isn’t small. It isn’t a grant given out by an authority. If a person sees the greatness of freedom, he can then imagine a future that is also great. Expansive. Multiplying.” “People bump up against great and open ideas in their minds on a regular basis. They can choose to stop and consider those ideas and appreciate them and utilize them, or they can move along to much smaller and narrower ideas and take hold of them and build their lives around them.” “For many people freedom has the whiff of danger. That’s an illusion. The real danger is abandoning freedom and leaving it on the side of the road.” “If the future closes up and what’s left over is mundane and unexciting, imagination takes a holiday. It leaves a note on the kitchen table that says, ‘I’m leaving town. Let me know when you’re ready to launch the adventure of your life. Then I’ll be back in a flash.” “You could say that freedom is a state of mind. But it isn’t a naturally occurring state of mind. You can’t depend on it showing up. You need to assume it, like the premise of an argument. Except you aren’t arguing. You’re launching.” “It doesn’t matter how the fact of your freedom affects anyone else. In the long run, you’re leaving a trace of what you have with others. They can react against it or for it in their own minds, but they’ll remember it. They’ll know, at some level, that they can assume freedom for themselves.” “Freedom and imagination are brothers. One brother strengthens the other. Inspires the other. This is a magnificent thing. This climbs mountains to the highest peaks. This transforms existence.” “Together, freedom and imagination are more real than reality. They make new reality. They provoke, on a physical level, the cells of the body to energize and percolate with the fervent desire to participate in a grand future…” Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.23 Dec

Deep Sea News

AUV with your nose so bright, won’t you guide my sleigh tonight? - How does Santa get presents to the deep sea? With ocean robots of course! Enjoy Oceaneerings Holiday Card with 8 tiny ReinROVs. And if you need to deliver gifts on land, Boston Dynamics has also got you covered. 24 Dec
Tentacles, Tube Feet, and Other Sticky Things. - You guys…I did a thing. I published my first book. It’s a children’s sticker book all about the intertidal squishies that I love so much! Each page has a description of one of 12 critters and explorers of all ages can commemorate finding each one with a fabulous sticker. With the help of some amazing Park Service Volunteers, we are excited to share our love and passion for the Rocky Intertidal Zone with the masses. You’ll have to come visit to get one. See you soon and happy tidepooling! 20 Dec
Salty Introduction: Jarrett Byrnes - Hello hello. I thought I’d introduce myself as one of the newest members of the DSN crew. I’m an assistant professor at UMass Boston studying kelp forests, salt marshes, and changes in ocean biodiversity and ecosystem function. So, I’m more on the shallow sea news side of things – -5 to ~40m in depth. But somehow Craig et al. decided to bring me on anyway. So stand by for some photic zone phun. I’m also delighted to be here as I think I’ve been on a bit of a science blogging and science communications journey. Some of you might know me from my old blog, I’m a Chordata! Urochordata!. It’s where I began experimenting with talking about ocean science online. I began it as a research blog, partly for myself. Then I got interested in trying to tell stories about science in the sea. And then… it’s morphed into something more of a blog by a scientist for scientists, heavy on the quantitative stuff. I admit, starting a new faculty job, I had a long think about what that blog was and how it fit into my career, and came up quite empty handed. As a new faculty member, I’ve been pretty concerned with building a lab, writing grants, getting a handle on teaching, writing grants, learning the administrative ropes and new responsibilities I have, writing grants, trying to do the things I need to do to secure tenure and ingratiate myself to my colleages, writing grants, and generally keeping my head down. Well, as much as I am able to make myself, anyway. But there’s been a deep aching in my heart. That I’m not sure of what my voice is as a science communicator. That I wasn’t able to bring that to my blog. And some of that was real – if only from the exhaustion that is the modern life academic in your early years. And some of that might well have been imagined caution. With all that is happening, inside of me, I’ve known, that this holding back has to stop now. We’re entering a time when our oceans are going to be under new and wilder threats – some we’ve seen coming and some we don’t yet know about. There’s never been a time to share more about our love and passion for the wee beasties and charsimatic megaflora and fauna of the deep than now. And so when an email comes from Craig about joining the superteam at DSN…you think about what you want to say and what voice you want to put out there. And so I look to the ocean. The ocean is wide and vast and deep. It contains so much wonder. So much joy. But it has no time for bullshit. It does not care about you. How we as a species see the ocean depends so much on how we choose to look at it. So I’m going to try and bring that to what I write here – wonder, joy, no bullshit, and ultimately laying down things as they are. It’s my take on our core values, and I can’t wait to share them with you. Also kelp. I will be sharing kelp. Lots of kelp. (and maybe a few sea chanties)20 Dec
Ocean robot seized, causes international incident - This past week, a US Naval drone was seized by a Chinese submarine in international waters in the South China Sea. When I hear the word drone, I imagine a flying contraption that someone with a shotgun took down because they thought it was spying on their house. This is not that kind of drone. The drone they are talking about here is the underwater version, otherwise known as a glider. Gliders are vehicles that carry a suite of oceanographic sensors that measure ocean properties. This could include a CTD to estimate physical properties such as temperature, salinity, depth and sound speed or oxygen, chlorophyll fluorescence and backscatter sensors to measure biological properties. Oceanographers love these things because they are autonomous, meaning they can drive themselves with only a little help from humans on shore (although they sometimes do need to wake up at ungodly hours to help redirect them). Plus, they are much cheaper than using a ship. From the vague and conflicting description on news reports, I haven’t been able to figure out exactly what kind of “ocean glider” was seized by the Chinese. It is either this Seaglider or this Slocum Glider: Operationally, both of these gliders work pretty much the same. They are buoyancy-driven, which means they have a bladder that fills up with either oil or seawater allowing it to sink or float. The wings force the glider forward as it is diving and dive pitch and speed is adjusted by internally shifiting weight inside the body (usually the heavy battery pack). The Seaglider also uses changes in the location of the battery pack to roll itself and steer, while the Slocum Glider steers with an adorable little rudder. What differs is the range and the scientific payloads these gliders can carry. Generally Seagliders go deeper but carry less stuff, while Slocum’s cruise the shallow seas and can be more heavily loaded. It’s pretty well known that the US has economic and security interests in the region around the South China Sea where the drone was seized. These ocean gliders have been used here before, the Office of Naval Research regularly supports oceanographic research in the region. The question to ask is not why the glider was taken, as it was unclassified and a small asset, rather why was it taken now? As of the writing of this article, the answer to this question is still unclear. However, the US and China have struck a deal and apparently the US is getting its glider back unharmed, which is good news for once ocean robot who took an unexpected detour.  19 Dec
Have you been nautical or nice? Gifts for the marine scientist - This holiday season be sure to treat the weekend, aspiring, or career marine scientist in your life with the gear and equipment they need.  Better yet treat yourself. 1. Carhartts Nothing beats a brand spanking new comfortable pair of Carhartts. No wait that isn’t true. A new pair of Carhartts is rougher than sharkskin and when they get wet the chafing will start a fire between your thighs. Then why o’ why would a marine scientist wear them? Well first this is marine science not easy science, so suck it up. Second, when a pair of Carhartts are finally broken in, they are supple like leopard. Despite this, they will laugh in the face of sharp objects and protect your delicate marine scientist skin. The mud color, technically Carhartt brown, of the fabric means you can wear them for days in a row sorting benthic samples and nobody will know. Except for the smell. Protip: Don’t chintz and get the single layer ones, unless you are working in the tropics. You really want the double fronts. Carhartt Men’s Double Front Work Dungaree Pant B01 2. Stocking Hat Everyone calls this thing something different. My Australian colleagues giggle at me when I call it a ‘stocking’ hat. Take a second and think about it. No matter, spend some time doing deck ops at night, a few hours in the cold and dark ROV control room, or processing samples in a cold van and you will definitely want this. I prefer a Carhartt stocking hat in charcoal grey because I look sooooo fine in it. Protip: When you do field work always look good. Carhartt Men’s Knit Hat With Visor, Army Green, One Size 3. Hard Hat You got to protect that noggin of yours because no matter how good you look in that stocking hat you are getting paid for your brains not your looks. Well hopefully. Everyone has their own hard hat preference. Some people use the ones lying around the ship. The same hard hats worn by 50 dozen other scientists this month alone. I prefer my own and one shaped like a cowboy hat. Look at me! I’m a Southern Boy at sea! Protip: Don’t hesitate to decorate the your hard hat how ever you see fit. Vulcan Cowboy Hard Hat 6 Point Ratchet Suspension – White #VCB200 4. CRKT Pocket Knife A decade ago when I went off to Antarctica, my wife sent me with a brand new CRKT pocket knife. I still have the knife and it is still reliable and sharp. Everyone again has personal preferences on what a pocket knife should include but let me tell you what I look for. You must be able to open it with a single hand. Good size thumb studs and fluid movement then are a must. I like a combo straight and serrated blade for a variety of tasks. And because I don’t want to slice my fingers off a locking blade is must as well. The knife must also have a lanyard hole. You would be surprised how many knives do not. Also it needs to not be too big. You are not trying to be Rambo here. Protip: Grab yourself a sharpener. Nothing is more ridiculous than a dull knife. The Lansky PS-MED01 BladeMedic is amazing. Crkt Knives 6813 Ryan Seven Combo Edge Knife 5. Lineman’s Pliers (or 9’s) You want pull on something? Cut something? Grab something? Wrench something? And generally have a tool will accomplish every task you may face? You bet your bippy you do. That’s what lineman’s pliers are for and you must own a pair. Protip: Get a good set and be willing to spend a little money. My favorite quote from an Amazon review about 9’s is this “My grandfather used to say that if God had made 9″ Kleins first, it would’ve only taken him four days to finish the world.” Well you’re not God but you’ll be a little closer with these.Klein Tools Tools D213-9NE 9-Inch High Leverage Side Cutting Plier 6. Snippers and Zip Ties If you are good marine scientist you will go though your weight in cable ties. Make sure you get an assortment. You will also need something to snip all of those with. I have Hakko’s that are great quality and cheap. Protip: Purchase a divided utility box to keep your cable ties sorted by color and size.Hakko CHP-170 Micro Clean Cutter, 16 Gauge Maximum Cutting Capacity TEKTON 6235 Assorted Cable Ties, 200-Piece 7. These Velcro Straps For binding up extension cords, rope, cable ties and just about everything else. Protip: Get them in multiple colors so you and your gear can be pretty. Velcro Color Coded Multi-Pack Cable Ties in 6″, 9″ and 13.5″ Lengths 8. Multi-Bit Screwdriver Don’t be that person with a mutlitool or the tip of your knife trying to screw something. My father-in-law gifted me a Klein multi-bit screwdriver years ago. I LOVE THIS THING. Everything right where it needs to be and all the head choices you really need—big and small, Phillips and flat heads. Protip: Make sure also to grab the little one too for all those tiny places. Klein Tools 32557 Heavy-Duty Multi-Bit Screwdriver/Nut Driver Klein 32561 Std. Stubby Screwdriver/Nut Driver with Cushion Grip. 6 in 1 Tool. 9. Duck Tape Yeah I know it’s actually duct tape but I didn’t realize that until I was 9, or 29, years old. Go ahead and stock up on this because this miracle of the 20th century will probably save your ass more than once. Protip: Don’t get fancy with colors either because that will cost your more but do not buy an off brand, go straight for the 3M. 3M Utility Duct Tape 2929 Silver, 1-22/25 in x 50 yd 5.8 mils (Pack of 1) 10. Gridded Petri Dishes Need to count a bunch of tiny things under the microscope? Or just need to start sorting fauna out of sediment samples. Then gridded petri dishes are your friend. The biodiversity of the deep sea is both a blessing and a curse. The lines actually help alleviate the latter. Petri Dish, Square Grids – Package of 10 11. Stainless Steel Tally Counter If you have never counted so many things that you needed a hand counter you are probably missing out. Not really. However there is something very soothing about clicking away the time with your thumb. Protip: Get the stainless steel one for the obvious reasons—like bragging to other scientists about your stainless steel tally counter Buy Jump Ropes H-102 Stainless Steel Tally Counter 12. Tupperware I cannot even begin to enumerate the reasons why you will need Tupperware in the field. Are you going to need to hold stuff? Are you going to need to keep stuff from moving about? Are you going need to construct something with just duct tape, zip ties, and Tupperware? Yes, Yes, and Yes. Protip: Buy an assortment pack. Rubbermaid 50-Piece Easy Find Lid Food Storage Set 13. Cafeteria Tray When working in the lab or at sea it is important to contain your mess and items. Cafeteria tray to the rescue! I’ve used these for dissection trays and for transferring items back and forth between the cold room and the lab. The fiberglass trays, as opposed to the plastic, are more durable. The one I use is stain, odor, and scratch-resistance perfect for marine invertebrates. Protip: Get one in black as it will make a nice background for shooting photographs of animals, rocks, and other samples. Cambro 1520-110 Fiberglass Camtray Rectangular Cafeteria Tray, Black 14. Restaurant Bus Tub Basically the same philosophy as the cafeteria tray but with sides! Keep your stuff organized in the lab and provides a nice containment area for all that wet sorting. Protip: Buy two. Rubbermaid Commercial FG335100BRN Undivided Bus/Utility Box, 7-1/8-gallon, Brown 15. Shelf Liner Shelf liner is cheap and keeps your laptop, coffee cup, microscope, and everything else from moving around. May just prevent that laptop from sliding right off the table onto the lab floor when the boat is rocking. Con-Tact Grip Premium Non-Adhesive Shelf Liner, 12-Inch by 4-Feet, Black 16. Shop Paper Towels Can some explain to me what is up with the little boxes of Chemwipes? They are expensive and do not absorb anything—sort of like John Wayne toilet paper. Chemwipes are the scooters of paper towels. Sure there cute and little but if you are driving more than a couple of miles worthless. On the other hand, blue shop towels are the pure Detroit 70’s muscle power of paper towels. The 1970 Plymouth Hemi’ Cuda. You could dry an entire research vessel with just one square of these. You will never look at paper towels the same again. SCOTT- Shop Towels, 12 rolls 17. Custom Lab Notebook I like my music, dance moves, vehicles, and much more old school. My data recording is the same way. I record everything into a lab notebook. I print graphs from my computer and tape them in my notebook. I write notes and new research ideas in my notebook. It is way for me to engage with the information around me. At the Book Factory you can custom order hard cover lab notebooks and have your name embossed in gold on the front cover. Protip: Opt for the gridded pages. 18. iBomb You will most definitely want to get you jam on. At 1:30 am sorting samples in the lab it will definitely be time to blast Beastie Boy’s Sabatoge. This little speaker is THE BEST portable speaker out there. It will fit in the palm of your hand and produce enough base to rival any Ice Cube’s low low. Protip: Develop a special field playlist. iBomb(TM) EX350 High Quality Wireless Bluetooth 3.0 with 3.5mm AUX Input, Microphone, Micro SD Card Slot Include for MP3 Function, Rechargeable Super Bass Sounding Stainless Steel Mini Speaker (Silver) 19. eBags Mother Lode My consistent fear is over packing. This is only second to my fear that others will think I am over packing. What you need is a piece of luggage that doesn’t look like you are packing a lot. Enter the Mother Lode. It is really phenomenal how much you can fit inside this carry on bag. Well made and with all the same properties of a Tardis. Protip: Choose the black color so stains will not show. eBags Mother Lode TLS Mini 21″ Wheeled Duffel (Tropical Turquoise) 20. Chubby Bottom Coffee Mug Let’s face it, you will be drinking a lot of coffee in the field. A skinny travel mug will be no good at sea. Always tipping over. You need something with a fat bottom that refuses that laughs in the face of a rocking boat. Great mug but with its fat bottom it will laugh at standard size cup holders. Protip: Buy a carbineer to attach it to your travel bag. Stainless Steel Thermal Insulated Chubby Cup 21. Pelican Case Pelican cases are water and crush proof to protect all your available assets. If they made larger ones you could ship your students in them. I get hours of enjoyment cutting the foam inserts to fit exactly around my field dissecting scope Protip: Choose one with roller and extendable handle for easy travel. Pelican Storm Case 24.90″ x 23.70″ x 13.10″ Case w/out Foam – Black 22. Alcohol Resistant Markers No not that kind of alcohol but that would be important too. Not much to say other than when you labeling the jar or bag of a valuable specimen you want that information to last forever. Protip: Buy many. Alcohol Resistant Cryogenic Permanent Markers – Black – Pack of 6 23. Amscope Why would you take an expensive Zeiss microscope to sea or the field? Great optics are find for the lab back home. But in the case of loss or damage you do not want you $10,000 Zeiss in the line of fire. Instead opt for the Amscope where you can purchase a dissecting scope for as little as $400. Protip: Purchase the digital camera through Amscope as well. 24. Your Own Blanket Every ship supplies you with a scratch wool blanket from the 1920’s. I always bring my own because I prefer not to have skin rubbed off during the night and it is never quite clear to me when these were last cleaned. I use a fleece blanket because it packs up quite small and can double as a pillow on a flight. You can use a zip tie to keep it cinched. Protip: Order a fleece blanket with some flare so you know it is yours. I like the one below with a Bald Eagle on it. ‘MERICA! American Eagle Print Comfy Polar Fleece Throw Blanket 60″ X 70″ – Bigger, Better, Softer – One Week Clearance Sale On Now! 25. Waterproof Smartphone Case Without going into the painful details, I have lost two iPhones to water. Protip: Buy one now. LifeProof Cases18 Dec
Have you been nautical or nice? Take your present wrapping game to the next level - Throughout the years my dad and I have had some duke-out contests wrapping the holiday gifts. We aren’t just talking about fancy bows and ribbons here. Oh no…one Christmas all of my presents were shaped like pyramids, while all of his presents were in double duct-taped boxes. Yeah…it get’s real in Casa de Warneke. This season, in an effort to be more sustainable and offset the gajillion holiday catalogs I have received in the mail (seriously Brookstone it’s getting ridiculous) I decided to go a different route. Sacrificing a small stack of old Alert Diver mags, I wrapped this years gifts in an assortment of my favorite squishy creatures. Deck the Halls with Bows and Tentacles…Fa la la la la lala la la.   Nothing says a ruined Silent Night for this macaques than the impending BOBBIT WORM OF DOOM!   We fish you a Merry Christmas…   …we fish you a Merry Christmas…   …we FISH you a Merry Christmas from this Astroscopus gattutus right here!   No sea-themed wrapping job is complete without an appearance of the West Marine 2016 Holiday Catalog.   And Wah-la! Presents as educational as they are fun to look at. Happy Wrappings!  16 Dec
Big wave story is big - I imagine somewhere there is a cold-war era control room in a deep bunker where an alarm bell starts ringing every time a giant ocean wave is detected. When the  World Meteorological Association announced there was a new record holder for the World’s biggest significant wave height recorded by a buoy, I immediately scrambled for more info! A lone buoy deployed by the UK Met office measured beastly 19.2 meter (62.3 feet) waves in the North Atlantic between the UK And Iceland. In case you were wondering, if this wave guest starred in the “Day After Tomorrow” it would look like this: But if you were in a 20 m fishing boat and the wave was breaking it would look a little more like this: In some ways, this giant wave was created by the perfect storm. A cold front passing through the North Atlantic created strong winds over 40 km/hr. In the open ocean, these winds can blow over a long distance uninterrupted. The longer the fetch length, the bigger the wave. All these features combined to make a mondo wave set. Image from Wunderground. But is it the biggest wave? Depends on what kind of wave you are talking about. On the surface of the ocean? NOPE. That was a 29 meter wave recorded by a ship in 2002. Swell breaking on shore? NOPE. Breaking waves over 30 meters (100 ft) have been seen AND surfed in Nazaré, Portugal. And lest not forget my Ph.D. pretties, internal waves? NOPE AGAIN. These waves that occur in the deep sea can easily be over 200 m tall! While this isn’t the biggest wave, it is still record breaking and impressive. I’m just glad I’m not that flailing buoy that measured it!    16 Dec
The Trump Administrations Attack on Science - Well let’s see where things stand… President Elect Trumps transition team requested the Department of Energy name staffers who worked on climate change programs. Thankfully they refused. A Trump team member just compared climate science to the flat-Earth theory The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee tweeted a link to a widely debunked Breitbart article questioning warming due to climate change Climate denier James Delingpole wrote an article for Breitbart recently, titled “When You Hear A Scientist Talk About ‘Peer Review’ You Should Reach For Your Browning” – a sentence taken almost word for word from the Nazi play “Schlageter”.  Steve Bannon, Trumps named Chief Strategist, served as Breitbart’s former executive chair (note DSN policy is not to link to websites that promote anti-science, sexist, or racist agendas) Myron Ebell, who heads the transition team at the Environmental Protection Agency, is the leader of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an anti-climate-science group, Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, was named the head of the E.P.A. “Pruitt actively opposed to the efforts of the E.P.A. to regulate the environment and in a recent piece for National Review…Pruitt denied the veracity of climate science…also led the effort among Republican attorney generals tin resisting the Clean Air Act.” (note DSN policy is not to link to websites that promote anti-science, sexist, or racist agendas) Trump tapped another climate change denier for Secretary of Interior Trump’s own words indicate he actively denies the overwhelming evidence for climate change. In an precedented move, current Interior Secretary Sally Jewell stated researchers must “fight disinformation” about science during the Trump administration.  She advocate to “Make your voices heard and make them relevant to the people you are talking to.” Secretary Jewell made these statement to audience of one of largest gatherings of scientists in the world, the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco “I encourage people to speak up and to talk about the importance of scientific integrity, and if they see that being undermined to say something about it”   A mentor once told me that you cannot complain about losing a fight if you never fought.14 Dec
Are you worried about Trump deleting climate data? - “Are you worried about trump deleting climate data?” This was a text I received from a friend last night. My first cynical kneejerk reaction:After I got that out of my system, I thought a little bit more. Her question stemmed from a series of articles that have cropped up on the interwebs regarding how some scientists are making duplicate archives of public data because they fear it being deleted by the incoming administration if it doesn’t fit their ideology. For the best answer to my friend’s query, I needed to reframe the questions. Do I think Trump will physically press the delete key on data? PROBABLY NOT. There are just too many lines of evidence that support the science that the incoming administration disputes. Deleting it all would be to put it mildly, unwieldy. And not only that, it’s not theirs to delete. IT’S YOUR DAMN DATA. Your tax dollars paid for it and you should be able to have access to it. This is the type of data that people and companies use everyday to make this world livable, from planning infrastructure to deciding what coat to wear. Will Trump restrict access to the data? IT COULD HAPPEN. Access to data could be restricted. Which is pretty bad, because climate data has all sorts of applications and quashing it could have repercussions elsewhere. Building that house on a slope with the awesome view? Could be in landslide territory but you don’t know because no data! Even worse, data might still be taken but never analyzed, never interpreted and never communicated to the public in a useful way by imposing limits on what government agencies can say. There’s definitely precedent for this. Government scientists let out a collective sigh of relief once they were allowed to utter the words “climate change” again. That being said, it’s ALWAYS a good idea to have independent repositories. So I applaud the efforts. If you want to save the data, check out Guerilla Archiving or Climate Mirror. Both are concerted efforts to copy climate data so it remains freely available and accessible. And remember, it’s not only about the data, it’s about communicating that data. As Luanne Thompson from the UW wisely said: “Be a little bit braver” and have those difficult and awkward conversations about the science you care about.14 Dec
In New England, We Love Our Football and our Barnacles - I’m not saying that the 50 yard line at Gillette stadium doesn’t have a barnacle on it, but, as pointed out by Will White, marine quantitative ecologist extraordinaire, the 50 yard line for the Pats Gillette stadium TOTALLY HAS A BARNACLE ON IT!!! Photo courtesy of XN Sports – http://xnsports.com/uspw_4312528/   Epic barnacle win!14 Dec

RSS Feed - Digital Journal News from Canada

Canada has a way for you to report bad drone drivers - The Canadian government wants bad drone drivers reported and they have come up with a way for the public to help them. They created a hotline.24 Dec
London, Ontario researcher made world's smallest snowman - Of course it is not really a man. And it is not even made of snow. But what is being referred to as the “world’s smallest snowman” is so tiny it can only been seen through an electron microscope.23 Dec
Kinder-Morgan's Trans Mountain Pipeline faces new court challenge - Conservation groups filed a new court challenge to the government's approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Monday evening, becoming at least the eighth legal test of the controversial pipeline project.20 Dec
Canadian provinces reject proposed government health care funding - The federal government and the provinces have failed to reach an agreement on health-care funding. The Liberal government had offered $11.5 billion to increase targeted spending on home care and mental health.19 Dec
Canadians join in to save climate data before Trump takes power - Some people may look at archiving all the federal government's data on climate science as nothing more than paranoia, but when the incoming administration has made no secret it is hostile to climate change science, it's better to be safe than sorry.18 Dec
Mermaids Hate Plastic: New video gets 1.5 million hits in one day - Get a mermaid, 10,000 plastic bottles, and a video studio. Try to express a response to a statement like "More plastic than fish in the sea by 2050".That's Benjamin Von Wong’s new viral video, a whole new way of sending a very effective message.17 Dec
Canadian debt to household income ratio reaches 166.9 percent - In the third quarter of 2016 the Canadian household debt to income ratio rose to a record high as borrowing continues to increase faster than incomes.17 Dec
Canada police raid Montreal pot stores after Trudeau's warning - Police in Montreal raided six cannabis shops one day after they opened, following a warning by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that recreational marijuana is not yet legal in Canada.17 Dec
Soulpepper reimagines ʻWonderful Lifeʼ as a postwar radio play - As with other overexposed holiday classics – “A Christmas Carol”, “The Grinch” and so on – itʼs hard to see “Itʼs a Wonderful Life” in a fresh way. But Philip Grecianʼs stage adaptation tries a unique approach: a live radio play.16 Dec
Nine dead of fentanyl opioid abuse in one day in Vancouver: mayor - Nine people died from fentanyl opioid overdoses in the Canadian city of Vancouver in just the past 24 hours, Mayor Gregor Robertson said Friday.16 Dec

Dot Earth

After Nine Years and 2,810 Posts, a Dot Earth Farewell - After nine years and 2,810 posts, a blog seeking a sustainable path for humans on a finite planet comes to an end. 5 Dec
Facing Standing Rock Campaign, Army Corps Blocks Dakota Pipeline Path - Intensifying Indian protests prompted the Obama administration to block a pipeline's path in North Dakota. 4 Dec
Will California Ever Let Sierra Nevada Forests Burn? - In the Sierra Nevada, California's main forest fire problem lies in not letting forests burn. 4 Dec
A Belated Farewell to a Pioneering Polar Bear Researcher - A tribute after the death of a young and innovative field researcher who used a scat-sniffing dog to help figure out polar bears' changing diets. 3 Dec
TED’s Science Curator Sees Hope in Earth’s Anthropocene Age - TED's new curator of science, David Biello, explains why he sees hints of hope in Earth's emerging Anthropocene "age of us."30 Nov
What Changed, and Didn’t, After the 1988 Slaying of a Rain Forest Hero in Brazil - After the murder of Chico Mendes in 1988, a new brand of green governance developed on Brazil's rain forest frontier, but political instability poses fresh threats.28 Nov
Under Trump, Will NASA’s Space Science Include Planet Earth? - Advisors to President-elect Trump see little merit in NASA emphasizing "Earth-centric" science.28 Nov
In Madagascar Test, Drone Delivers Medicine by Air - Drones, mainly associated with missiles, are poised to deliver medicines in Madagascar.26 Nov
An Exercise to Sift for Sources Amid a Blitz of Fake News - A web-sifting exercise that helps students of all ages figure out how facts or fakery flow online.24 Nov
Rx for the Anthropocene? A Dose of ‘Anthropophilia’ - Andy Revkin argues that a first step toward a successful human journey is a little positive self regard.22 Nov

Drug WarRant

Open Holiday Thread - Hope everyone on the couch is having an enjoyable holiday season. Best wishes to all from DrugWarRant. If you’re fortunate enough to have family, cherish that time. Off to spend Christmas Day with my grand-nephews. 09:53
Nora Volkow is stumped - Regulated markets for adults have not made it easier for younger people to get marijuana. U.S. News The latest Monitoring the Future survey is out. Actual use of the drug dropped among 8th grade students and stagnated among 12th graders. Reported annual use continued a five-year slide among 10th grade students, though the year-to-year change was not statistically significant. “I don’t have an explanation. This is somewhat surprising,” says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which commissions the annual survey. “We had predicted based on the changes in legalization, culture in the U.S. as well as decreasing perceptions among teenagers that marijuana was harmful that [accessibility and use] would go up. But it hasn’t gone up,” she says. “We’re seeing that more people in the U.S. except for teenagers are taking it,” Volkow says. “The rates of increases are highest among young adults 18-24, so one would expect that would translate to the adolescents, but apparently it has not.” As Tom Angell of the Marijuana Majority notes: “We’ve always argued that taking marijuana out of the unregulated criminal market and putting sales into the hands of responsible retailers would actually make it harder for young people to get. The new data bear this out, and it’s just common sense. Under legalization, businesses have every incentive to follow the rules and make sure their customers are of legal age lest they lose their lucrative licenses. Conversely, black market dealers don’t care about the IDs in their customers wallets; they only care about the money in there.” 13 Dec
And the war continues - Mexico quietly marks 10 years of drug war Ten years after Mexican troops were unleashed against drug cartels, the country will mark the anniversary without fanfare on Sunday, with murders rising again and the military eager to return to barracks. President Enrique Pena Nieto, who inherited the drug war when he took office in December 2012, has promised his countrymen and women a “Mexico in peace.” So, after 10 years, how is that progressing? “The war has become much more complex. The level of death has escalated,” Raul Benitez Manaut, a security expert at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, told AFP. Ah. Even Defense Minister Salvador Cienfuegos agrees that troops do not belong in a law enforcement role. “We didn’t ask to be here. We don’t like it. We didn’t study how to chase criminals,” Cienfuegos said on Thursday. He said he would be the first to raise “not one, but two hands” in favor of returning troops to barracks. “Our function is something else and it’s been made into something unnatural. We are doing things that don’t correspond to our training because there’s no one else to do them,” the minister said. The only way to win the drug war is to end it. 13 Dec
Hard to talk about anything else - Maybe it’s just the inundation of crap I have in my Facebook feed right now that’s making me want to retreat from the news, but I’m having a hard time focusing on drug policy (that, and the fact that I’m focused on a show I’m producing that’s running right now in Chicago that closes at the end of this week). I guess there’s such a feeling of uncertainty as to what the upcoming Presidency will mean to… anything. It seems to me that those who are absolutely certain are probably the most likely to be completely wrong. So, while this has already been shared in comments, it seems that perhaps I just need to play this for you. Seems like a good pick to me. 12 Dec
Open Thread - A couple of interesting ones from Tom Angell at Marijuana.com Congressional Republicans Vow To Block Marijuana Amendments Don’t count on there being any marijuana votes in the U.S. House next year. That’s the message that Republican leadership in Congress is sending after blocking a number of cannabis amendments from reaching the House floor earlier this year. “The chairman has taken a stand against all amendments that are deemed poison pills and that would imperil passage of the final bill,” Caroline Boothe, spokeswoman for House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX), told Marijuana.com in an email on Monday. White House Hints At Possible Marijuana Moves How Idaho’s Drug Warriors Stole Hope from Epileptic Kids – a good investigative story from Reason’s Eric Bohm about the behind-the-scenes efforts to stop a good bill that would allow CBD to be used for medical purposes, because of the interests of drug warriors. Obama says marijuana should be treated like ‘cigarettes or alcohol’ Christopher Ingraham did a pretty good job of covering this story, touching on the huge disappointment that we continually have with political leaders deciding to realize the truth about legalization once they’re leaving office. The only slight quibble I have with Ingraham on this is the amount of “other side” time he gives to SAM, and the idea that they even have a coherent “approach.” Expect to see more of this kind of thing now… Return White House Drug Czar to Cabinet by Robert Charles at Townhall Opiate addiction has skyrocketed, leading to a breathtaking loss of 47,055 lives last year. Deaths by synthetic drugs quintupled in some categories. Marijuana use, the number one basis for drug treatment, has jumped by 27 percent (during Obama’s years). Drugged driving has risen by roughly 20 percent, and 80 percent of men arrested for property and personal crime in major cities test positive for drugs. This is a genuine crisis enveloping the country. Sigh. A nicer, somewhat related bit? The latest proclamation of National Impaired Driving Prevention Month, 2016. While, in the past, many of these were opportunities to spread misinformation about drugged driving (John Walters, anyone?) this one is actually reasonable. Recently, the number of traffic crash fatalities caused by impaired driving has unfortunately increased — last year, preventable alcohol-related driving fatalities accounted for nearly one-third of all traffic fatalities. Consumption of alcohol by drivers, even those who are of legal drinking age, is highly dangerous, and drug use, including prescription drug use, can also harm judgment, perception, and the motor skills used when driving. Distracted driving — including eating, tending to passengers, and using a cell phone — can also be dangerous and is equally preventable. […] NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 2016 as National Impaired Driving Prevention Month. I urge all Americans to make responsible decisions and take appropriate measures to prevent impaired driving. I can go along with that sentiment. 5 Dec
New head of the DEA? - TRUMP PICKS EL CHAPO TO RUN D.E.A. It’s satire, of course, but I couldn’t resist. In an official statement, Trump said that El Chapo’s “tremendous success in the private sector” showed that he has what it takes to “shake things up” at the D.E.A. Trump’s appointment of the former drug lord surprised many in Washington, in no small part because acrimony between the two allegedly prompted El Chapo, in 2015, to put a hundred-million-dollar bounty on Trump’s head. But, appearing on CNN, the Trump surrogate Kellyanne Conway said that the selection of El Chapo should surprise no one. “Mr. Trump always said that he would surround himself with the best people,” she said. 28 Nov
Jeff Sessions, Attorney General? - Oh, we’re in for a bumpy ride. 18 Nov
Open Thread - Retirement continues to be a very busy time for me. Spent the past week in Chicago getting my newest Living Canvas show ready to open tomorrow. [Trans]formation uses the unique Living Canvas technique (projections on bodies) to tell the stories, poetry and songs of transgender and other non-binary individuals. It’s a pretty stunning world premiere and there really is nothing like it. Running November 17 to December 17 at The Vault at Collaboraction Studios in the Flat Iron Arts Building, 1579 N. Milwaukee Ave in Chicago. More info. Early indications in the hugely chaotic transition period for the upcoming President Trump seem to indicate that there are likely to be a lot of hawks in the new administration. In general, that bodes poorly for any kind of reduction or reform of the international drug war, and increases the need to continue to establish the ascendency of the states in drug policy, along with convincing small-government Republicans in Congress to act as a brake against potential overreach by a Trump Justice Department. 16 Nov
Ongoing Election Results - Here’s a news site from New Orleans that is doing live tracking of the various marijuana-related votes. Track marijuana referendum results: 9 states vote on legalizing pot 8 Nov
Vote - I voted early, as I’m heading up to Chicago to do a show. But it was a pretty dull affair, as I live in Central Illinois and there’s not much to vote for, other than making a symbolic statement. However, in some parts of the country, your vote matters. And not just the race everyone’s talking about, but judges, and council members, and initiatives. So do your research. Some really big marijuana initiatives this year – this could be a huge year for moving forward with legalization. Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nevada will vote on legalization, and Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota have medical marijuana votes. The LA Times has generally been quite anti-marijuana over the years, and yet they endorse marijuana legalization on the ballot in California. Meanwhile, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has spent millions this year opposing legalization. Here’s Christopher Ingraham’s article following the money. So, with nine states involved in this voting cycle, what do you think the score will be? 6 Nov

The Economic Voice

Tunisian Terrorist, Anis Amri, Shot Dead in Italy - Anis Amri killed by Italian policeman Anis Amri, the Berlin Christmas market killer, was shot dead by an Italian police officer during a shoot-out outside Sesto San Giovanni train station in Milan earlier today. Anis Amri had been approached during a ‘routine patrol’ because he was acting ’suspiciously’. On being challenged he pulled a handgun from his bag and shot one of the two police officers, Christian Movio, who is recovering in hospital. The other officer, a trainee named as Luca Scatà, gave chase and shot the terrorist dead. This will come as a great relief to many, as this person will no longer pose a threat to innocent people. But you have to ask yourself how he had managed to travel so far, so quickly in the modern age of ‘intelligence led’ policing. The truth is he managed to get from Berlin to Milan in just a few days, with some reports saying he travelled via France. As Germany has no direct border with Italy, he would have needed to traverse either France, Switzerland, Austria or Slovenia. All the while presumably armed with the gun he used to shoot one of the Italian police officers with. This placed the citizens of every country within the Schengen zone in jeopardy, as well as giving the fugitive a much easier route out of the EU. With national borders in place and properly enforced, it would have been easier to contain the terrorist, or make him more likely to ditch his weaponry in trying to flee across a border. Then there’s the fact that this man was previously convicted and jailed for arson in Italy but was then freely allowed, after release, to travel to Germany to carry out his atrocity. There are also other unsavoury aspects to his past that would have led any sane asylum/immigration system to reject him. It was also lucky for the rest of us (and for the police officers involved) that he was stopped and challenged by those equipped to deal with an armed criminal. Otherwise more innocent blood could well have been shed. We should also recognise that this event was not the result of a planned operation, it was because of two dedicated and brave policemen ‘on the beat’ doing their job. The Italian police had no prior information that he was in the city. Responding to the news, UKIP’s immigration spokesman, John Bickley, said: "It gives no one in UKIP any pleasure whatsoever to state 'we warned you'. Nigel Farage made it patently clear earlier this year that ISIS would use the refugee crisis and Merkel's 'open door invite' to the Middle East to smuggle hundreds of jihadists into Europe. John Bickley, UKIP "The slaughter of innocents in Paris and Nice was no coincidence and the latest atrocity in Berlin shows that ISIS is now at war with Europe. The EU's continued support of Schengen and uncontrolled immigration both within and from outside the EU is both costing innocent lives, leaving hundreds with life threatening or life changing injuries and undermining social cohesion and our Judeo-Christian culture. "That Anis Amri was able to enter the EU from Tunisia, be jailed in Italy, escape to Germany, kill and maim in Berlin, then flee back to Italy, through France, where he was shot dead is testament to the failure of the EU to protect it citizens and control its internal & external borders. "Only one Party  in the UK has had the political courage to consistently warn of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the EU and that party is UKIP. “UKIP must continue speaking truth to power and ensure that the UK is fully removed from the ticking time bomb that is the EU. History will judge that at a time of despair and tribulation only UKIP stood tall and was willing to fight for our hard fought for values and right to run our own affairs via a fully sovereign Parliament.”23 Dec
Mass Petition Calling for Mixed-Sex Civil Partnerships Presented to Government - Government admitted this month that current ban on mixed-sex civil partnerships cannot last A petition signed by over 70,000 people calling for the extension of civil partnerships to mixed-sex couples has been presented to the government. The petition, containing 71,410 signatures, was given to the Minister for Women and Equalities Justine Greening by supporters of the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign along with some of their political backers – MP Tim Loughton and Baroness Lorely Burt and Baroness Barker. This week the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan also threw his weight behind the campaign in an official letter written to the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign. The presentation came two weeks after the government admitted the current ban on mixed-sex civil partnerships could not continue indefinitely but claimed to lack evidence that the extension of civil partnerships would be popular. The claim was made by a government barrister defending the current ban in a court case brought to the High Court by Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, a London-couple who want to get a civil partnership. The barrister claimed that the government probably needed five years in order to decide the future of civil partnerships. Many campaigners are concerned that this means they are considering scrapping civil partnerships altogether. Keidan was present at the petition hand-in. He said: “Last week the government said it did not have enough evidence that civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples would be popular. So here we are today, removing any doubt from their minds! We really don’t want to have to continue battling for something that, to us, seems so simple and so right – giving all couples the right to get legal and financial protection in a way that they feel comfortable with. We want the government to embrace the change, not be forced into but one way and one day we are sure the change will be made.” Conservative MP Tim Loughton said: “With cross-party support from MPs, I have tabled a Private Members’ Bill that would make a simple change to the wording of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and thereby allow equal civil partnerships. “The Bill should come in front of the House early next year and if the Government were to support us we could be seeing mixed-gender couples getting civilly partnered in the not too distant future.” Liberal Democrat Baroness Lorely Burt said: “Equal marriage was a huge step forward for this country but has left a glaring equality gap. We should all be equal before the law regardless of our sexual orientation and the Government’s refusal to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples is frankly ridiculous. “I hope that this petition acts as a wakeup call to the Government for them to complete the work we started in Coalition and deliver equality for everyone." In a letter, sent direct to the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign, the Mayor of London said: “I am supportive of the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign. I am passionate about achieving equality for everyone and that means giving mixed-sex couples the right to a civil partnership. I recognise that there are many reasons why some people may not want to enter into a traditional marriage, and agree that everyone should have the right to express their relationship in loving union that works for them.” Andy Slaughter MP for Hammersmith said before the hand-in: "The government has dragged its feet over this change for too long now. With 70,000 signatures on a petition, MPs from all parties backing the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign, and couples flying to the Isle of Man to get civilly partnered it's impossible for the government to keep up the idea that they don't know if extending civil partnerships would be popular. As MP to Charles and Rebecca, the couple fighting for the right to get a civil partnership in the High Court, I am honoured to present this letter to Justine Greening and urge her to do the popular and pragmatic thing and open civil partnerships to all couples."20 Dec
Tottenham Hotspur offers shareholders new trading opportunities on Asset Match - Asset Match is the UK’s first online share trading platform for unlisted companies Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has announced Asset Match as the chosen facility for the trading of its shares. This unique service gives the club’s shareholders the ability to release their shares on a regulated and transparent trading platform, unlocking liquidity and increasing the club’s exposure to heightened investment potential. The club’s listing on Asset Match marks one of many significant transactions to have occurred on the platform during 2016. Earlier in the year, Scottish craft beer company BrewDog recorded 600 successful shareholder transactions – from a pool of 1,200 participants – as part of its recent auction on the Asset Match platform. Adding to the list of successful placements, West Berkshire Brewery has also concluded a series of share placings on the platform to the value of £2 million. Having held six online trading auctions for Tottenham Hotspur since March 2016, Asset Match’s official launch auction for the club will be held in December 2016. The club’s shares were initially transferred to a Match Bargaining Service from the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in January 2012, but issues surrounding the transparency and flexibility of share transactions meant that shareholders were unable to quickly unlock their liquidity. Tottenham Hotspur has joined Asset Match’s industry first trading platform to support its shareholders by offering them access to a regulated, transparent and effective platform for fast and cost-effective share trading. Stuart Lucas, Co-CEO of Asset Match, said: “Asset Match is proud to welcome Tottenham Hotspur to our trading platform. The club’s diverse shareholder base makes them ideally placed for the Asset Match trading service, which caters to those private companies seeking to liquidise their shares.  Having already held six online auctions through the year, I look forward to seeing how the club’s unlocked shareholder liquidity will support the company’s future expansion.” Tottenham Hotspur Operations and Finance Director Matthew Collecott said: “When we came off the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) almost five years ago we put in place a Matched Bargain facility for shareholders. However, in reviewing their offering over their initial auctions we believe that the Asset Match share dealing facility is a better transaction platform and is authorised and regulated by the FCA. Since March, Asset Match has conducted six auctions in our shares and has provided a transparent and effective service for shareholders."20 Dec
Pension scam victims urge government to be bold with cold calling ban - 10 million pensioners are being targeted each year by cold callers The government’s plans to crack down on cold calling have been hailed as a “golden opportunity to correct the UK’s disastrous, ‘chocolate teapot’-esque rules” by the chairman of a leading pensions campaign group. The observation from Angela Brooks of Pension Life, set up to identify and prevent pension scams, close loopholes in pension law and rescue victims of pension fraud, comes after it is reported that Chancellor Philip Hammond is to use his Autumn Statement to promise protection for people whose life savings may be at risk by cold callers. Ms Brooks comments: “It’s estimated that more than 10 million pensioners are being targeted each year by cold callers in the wake of the UK government’s much lauded pension freedoms. "Scammers are using the so-called freedoms to lure people into parting with their life savings by cold calling them with offers of non-existent or worthless investment opportunities.” She continues: “Mr Hammond’s announcement is a major step in the right direction and a golden opportunity to correct the disastrous, ‘chocolate teapot’-esque rules that have allowed so many people to lose their retirement funds. “This is all good news – and better late than never.  After a series of useless UK government ministers consistently refused or failed to take any action, we do now appear to have a cabinet that has at last recognised that this is an extremely serious and urgent problem.” Ms Brooks goes on to say: “While I have no wish to detract from the good news, the government must recognise that cold calling is only one of the tools in the scammers’ arsenals and that their tricks and techniques are constantly evolving.  And, sadly, it is not just unregulated scammers who are promoting such scams, but a few regulated UK firms as well. “If we’re now heading towards some form of prevention, the government now needs to tackle the problem of the damage this scourge of the financial services industry has caused both in the UK and offshore in the past six years.  Thousands of victims have been left financially crippled – not just by the scammers but also by HMRC – while the regulators and ombudsmen have twiddled their thumbs. “Hopefully, this will be the start of a sea change in Britain's attitude to fraud and a serious collection of effective measures put in place to prevent more scams and thwart the armies of scammers in all jurisdictions.”20 Dec
7 in 10 Firms to Increase or Maintain Innovation Spending Post Brexit Vote - Businesses concerned that UK lags behind international competition As the UK develops its economic role in the world outside of the EU, companies are planning to bolster spending on innovation to drive business growth, gain a competitive edge and ultimately, raise productivity. A CBI survey of over 800 businesses (CBI Innovation Survey 2016) – supported by Deloitte and Hays – shows that 70% of respondents plan to increase or maintain their innovation spending following the vote to leave the EU. Only 7% plan to reduce their investment. Last year business invested almost £21bn on innovation, allowing British firms to develop cutting-edge products and services, attract global investment and expand internationally. The challenge for businesses is that while the UK innovation system has world-class attributes, it does not currently match their ambitions. Businesses rate the UK as 10th in the world for innovation. While some firms view the UK as a world-beater in areas such as access to scientific research (35%) and tax incentives to support investment (30%) – the UK lags behind in other critical areas. Businesses rate the UK as a follower in areas such as partnering with external companies (21%) and grant funding (14%). In order to support businesses’ ambition to make the UK an innovation powerhouse, the CBI is calling on Government to commit to a long term-target of 3% public and private spend on R&D. Looking ahead to the upcoming EU negotiations, firms have a number of top priorities that will enable them to innovate in the future – access to skills (66%), tariff-free access for goods (41%) and keeping common regulatory standards (38%). Carolyn Fairbairn, CBI Director-General, said: “The UK will need to work hard to become the front-runner in global innovation, creating a pioneering economic role for itself in the world that drives prosperity in every corner of the UK. “Innovation is the nucleus of future economic and social development, so it’s encouraging that seven out of ten firms will keep up – or even raise – their spending on new technologies and work practices to grow their business. “As we prepare to depart the EU, this shows that firms are rolling up their sleeves and looking to make the best of Brexit. “Spending on innovation generates jobs and economic growth across the country, offering solutions to the challenges we face today and in the years ahead from improving healthcare and mobile technology to a new generation of autonomous vehicles. “While the UK has many innovation strengths to build on, businesses are worried that the country is too much of a follower in the global economy, with the lack of access to technical skills a grave concern for ambitious firms. “This Autumn Statement comes at a real crunch point to support our inventors, makers and designers, so the Chancellor must make the most of the tools at his disposal. The CBI wants to see a long-term commitment to target 3% of GDP in R&D spending by 2025 and a doubling of Innovate UK’s budget. “This needs to be underpinned by a new Industrial Strategy which builds on the UK’s sectoral and regional strengths.” Other key findings from the survey, supported by Deloitte and Hays, include: Customer service (24%) and product development (30%) are seen as two key areas that would benefit from greater innovation For more effective innovation, the top priorities are to increase collaboration and partnership (65%), greater access to technical skills (68%) and increased Government support (56%) 44% of firms believe that the main benefits of automation are increased productivity, an improved product or service (24%) and higher customer satisfaction (15%) With increased automation expected over the next ten years, companies believe that they will need more highly skilled staff (48%) and that automation may replace some roles (49%), while 20% believe there will be no effect. David Sproul, chief executive of Deloitte UK, said: “Britain has a real opportunity to be a world leader in innovation and we should be ambitious in our vision for what can be achieved. It is promising that businesses recognise the need to prioritise investing in new technologies. “However, while our country excels in ideas generation, it has a less successful track record to date of businesses adopting innovative approaches to boost productivity. We have an opportunity in the new post Brexit world to change that; Britain has world leading universities, but still has more to do to raise its record on secondary education, strengthening vocational routes to work and increasing the focus on skills for the future.” Alistair Cox, Chief Executive, Hays plc "Innovation brings us better ways of doing things, new solutions to old problems and whole new industries from which to grow. But in order for businesses to innovate they need the people with the skills to take their strategy forward and it is a great concern that many businesses today feel that they don't have access to the skills they need. “Government and business must work together to realign our education system in order to produce the graduates with the skills that are needed by today's and tomorrow's industries. In the meantime we must not restrict access into the UK for highly-skilled workers from abroad. Only by ensuring that UK businesses can access world-class talent, whether home-grown or from overseas, can we ensure that British business remains competitive and gains a position at the leading edge of innovation globally." Other findings include: There is strong support for innovation at board and management level – 88% agree their board back innovation But firms are struggling to find the capacity – 35% agree that their staff don’t have enough time to innovate 44% of respondents believe that their firms are Pioneers in innovation (early adopters and developers), while 42% regards their business as Experimenters (curious about innovation and looking to experiment) and 13% regard themselves as followers (once innovative practices are already in the mainstream) The CBI’s submission to the Autumn Statement sets out a number of key requests to the Government to lift UK innovation20 Dec
Are The Saudis About To Reveal The Best Kept Secret In Oil? - One of the oil world's longest and best kept secrets may finally be revealed Saudi Arabia is preparing to unveil how much oil it holds, a closely guarded state secret that has been kept quiet for decades. The decision to bring such important data to light comes as Saudi Aramco is preparing to partially privatize its assets, an IPO that could bring in some $100 billion. The IPO will be a monumental event, one that the Wall Street Journal says could offer Wall Street some of the largest fees in history. Saudi Arabia often trades off with Russia – and more recently, with the U.S. – as the world's largest oil producer. But while it produces at similar levels as Russia and the U.S., it is long been a vastly more influential player in the oil world. That is because of two reasons – the size of its reserves, and the ability to use latent spare capacity to quickly adjust supply, affording it an outsized influence on crude oil prices. But while everyone believes Saudi Arabia has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, perhaps rivaled only by Venezuela, there has been a lot of uncertainty and skepticism over exactly how much sits beneath the Saudi desert. The world's largest oil field, Ghawar, has been producing since the 1950s, raising speculation about the longevity of the supergiant oilfield. It alone is thought to hold around 75 billion barrels, and it churns out more than 5 million barrels every single day. Surely, it cannot continue like this indefinitely, but the Kingdom has not revised its official reserves for years, which have stood at 260 billion barrels since the 1980s. It is hard to overstate how valuable this information is, and how fiercely Saudi leadership protected it. However, the collapse of oil prices since 2014 has pushed the Saudi budget deep into the red. The Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is undergoing an historic transformation of the Saudi economy, a multi-decade plan to diversify the country's economic base and create new sources of revenue. At the heart of the plan is spinning off roughly 5 percent of Saudi Aramco, the most valuable oil company in the world. Saudi officials believe that the company is worth between $2 and $3 trillion. But in order to settled on a valuation and launch an IPO of some of Aramco's assets, investors need to get a look beneath the hood. That is why Saudi Arabia is now prepared to unveil not just its financials, but also the long sought after data surrounding its oil reserves. “Everything that Saudi Aramco has, that will be shared, that will be verified by independent third parties,” Khalid al-Falih, Saudi Arabia's energy minister, told the Financial Times in an interview. That would include, “reserves… costs [and] profitability indicators.” He went to lengths to emphasize Saudi Arabia's seriousness about the IPO, in an effort to dampen skepticism. “This is going to be the most transparent national oil company listing of all time,” he said. There is a great deal of suspicion regarding Saudi Arabia's insistence that its reserves still stand at 260 billion barrels. After all, how could such a figure stay constant when it is producing 9 to 10 million barrels every day, which adds up to a few billion barrels each year? Aramco would have to add billions of barrels of newly discovered reserves on an annual basis in order to prevent its reserve base from declining. It is doubtful that it has done that consistently since the 1980s. But nobody knows except the Saudis. As the FT notes, this figure will have massive ramifications for both Saudi Arabia and the global oil market. Right now, everyone is operating under the assumption that Saudi Arabia can continue to pump at its current pace for another seven decades. Long-term oil forecasts are predicated, in part, on Aramco's ability to do that. More important for Saudi Arabia itself, its credit rating as well as the fortunes of its economy over the coming decades is also predicated on that assumption. A sharply lower reserve estimate could send oil futures up if fears over supply surface, and it might also affect Saudi Arabia's credit rating. Aramco is preparing to launch the IPO in 2018, which means that it will need to publish data on its oil reserves before then. The oil world's biggest secret could soon be publicly released. Link to original article: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Are-The-Saudis-About-To-Reveal-The-Best-Kept-Secret-In-Oil.html By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com20 Dec
Sir Richard Branson invests in "climate change" breakthrough technology! - Virgin Voyages embraces Swedish Climeon as one step to reverse climate change When addressing the global climate challenge, one fundamental cornerstone has been missing until now. Heat power, a 100% green electricity source that is not dependent on the sun, wind or weather conditions, and that is more cost efficient than carbon based legacy sources (see video below). Climeon CEO Thomas Öström: “As WWF recognizes, heat power has the potential to be a major cornerstone in the fight to solve the climate crisis. At Climeon we are immensely proud to be a leader and pioneer in this work.” In a pioneering move, Virgin Voyages announced in October the world’s first full-scale deployment of Swedish based Climeon’s heat power solution on all of their cruise ships. The resulting environmental impact will be an estimated 5,400 tons of carbon dioxide savings annually per ship — an amount that would take 180,000 trees 30 years to absorb. However, the potential of Climeon Ocean goes far beyond the shipping industry. Steel plants, cement plants, aluminium plants – and data centers to mention but a few. US based Aligned Energy recently announced their plans to power data centers with heat power from Climeon. By connecting Climeon Ocean to geothermal heat from wells, data-centers can be powered by constant and reliable 100% green electricity. A typical data center consumes up to 50 MW of data, similar to 30,000 households. With this solution, the energy produced could reduce CO2 emissions similar to an amount that would take 10 million trees 30 years to absorb. Thanks to Climeon Ocean, Virgin Voyages ships will get electricity made from the cooling water from the ships engine, heat that would otherwise be dumped. Virgin Voyages President and CEO Tom Mcalpin: “I was amazed when I heard that Climeon operated at twice the efficiency of traditional heat conversion technologies. That meant Climeonʼs breakthrough technology was must-have on all Virgin Voyages ship. It’s a brilliant way to reduce emissions and at the same time cut costs. As the first line to put this on board cruise ships we are incredibly excited about this partnership and thank Climeon creating a better future for all of us.” Sir Richard Branson and Thomas Öström More than half of the energy in the world today is dumped as low temperature waste. Climeon’s heat power technology utilizes this waste heat and turns it into electricity. As heat is unlimited and available from multiple sources, such as geothermal, solar heat, industrial waste and large engines, Climeon was recently awarded the Climate Solver award from the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). Adding heat power, as a low cost 100% clean electricity baseload to the climate solver puzzle, a potential future emerges that involves unlimited clean electricity at costs far lower than today. This will allow individuals to have higher living standards, and business to prosper due to lower costs. Climeon CEO Thomas Öström: “We firmly believe that the climate challenge can best be solved with solutions that are better for individuals, companies and the planet at the same time. That is what we at Climeon call business for a better world.”20 Dec
Empty Homes Week: LandAid secures new donations to transform derelict buildings - UK property companies Palmer Capital and Shaftesbury have each donated £30,000 to LandAid, the property industry charity, to sponsor the transformation of derelict properties in Leeds and Newcastle into homes for young people facing homelessness. The news coincides with the start of ‘Empty Homes Week’ – a national campaign which aims to encourage the creative use of empty homes to meet housing need. The funding is the direct result of LandAid’s ‘Sponsor a Home’ initiative launched three months ago in response to the shocking number of homes sitting empty across the UK. Research by the Empty Homes Charity, released today, has found that four in five (83%) British adults believe the Government should place a higher priority on tackling empty homes. With millions of families on the waiting list for council housing and levels of homelessness soaring, the industry’s support comes at a time of critical need. Derelict Houses by Derek Harper (CC-BY-SA-2.0) Shaftesbury’s contribution, raised through staff fundraising efforts, will be used to convert derelict flats above a row of shops in North Shields into three new studio flats. The project, run by YMCA North Tyneside, will provide a stable environment for three young people who might otherwise be forced to live in poor quality B&Bs and private rented bedsits. In Leeds, Palmer Capital’s donation will enable award-winning charity Canopy Housing to renovate a derelict 2-bed terraced home and provide construction training for future tenants. This Empty Homes Week, LandAid is calling on more property companies to join its campaign and help address the wasted resource of empty homes. Those interested in finding out more should email leah.desilva@landaid.org or visit www.landaid.org. Alex Price, Chief Executive of Palmer Capital, said: “We have been a firm supporter of LandAid for many years and are delighted to have hit our fundraising target of £30,000. It has certainly been an active year, which has seen our prop co’s and us partaking in a range of fundraising activities from table tennis to poker tournaments. We couldn’t be more pleased with the outcome, which will have a significant impact on the lives of young people at risk of homelessness in Leeds.” Brian Bickell, Chief Executive of Shaftesbury, said: “We at Shaftesbury support LandAid’s ten year campaign to tackle one of the most important social issues of our time – youth homelessness.  Our fundraising this year has included participating in the TowerAthlon, a Shaftesbury Bake-Off, and a crazy golf night for over 150 players. We are proud to have raised £30,000 for the conversion of two empty flats in North Shields into three new studio flats, providing homes and the prospect of a better future for vulnerable young people.” Dean Titterton, Chief Executive of YMCA North Tyneside, said: "You cannot underestimate the return on investment from accommodating a vulnerable young person in a safe and welcoming environment. Combined with the sort of care and support YMCA are renowned for, our young people are able to gain the traction they need to become employed and achieve their other ambitions. We can't thank Shaftesbury and LandAid enough for their support in helping YMCA to transform the lives of young people in North Tyneside." Paul Morrish, Chief Executive of LandAid, said: “It is a scandal that so many young people are forced to face the danger and uncertainty of homelessness when 200,000 homes in England remain empty and unused. LandAid is proud to be working with Palmer Capital and Shaftesbury to turn vacant properties in Leeds and North Tyneside into safe accommodation for young people without a place to call home. But as we face the worst housing and homelessness crisis in a generation, we need more businesses in the property industry to step up and support our Sponsor a Home campaign. Youth homelessness is an avoidable and unnecessary tragedy. Together, we can end it for good.”20 Dec
Early messages from Trump - Despite fears that a Trump victory would be a negative risk-event, quite the reverse has happened By David Absolon, Investment Director at Heartwood Investment Management The four main benchmark US indices have hit record levels in November. The standout performer has been US small-cap stocks, which have enjoyed their longest consecutive-day winning streak since 1996. Financial stocks have led the rally on hopes of reduced regulation and as yield curves have steepened, with industrials and cyclical sectors also finding favour as they are perceived as standing to benefit from an incoming Trump administration. Meanwhile, higher dividend paying stocks – labelled ‘bond proxies’ – have lagged cyclicals. In an environment dominated by central bank liquidity, equity markets have rallied in lockstep with bond markets in the past couple of years, overturning conventional market correlations. However, over recent weeks, we have seen a return to the more traditional market behaviour as US treasury yields have moved meaningfully higher, especially since the US election. Investors have voted with their feet The strong performance of US equities has brought comparisons to the melt-up in 1999. The current rally appears to be technically driven, as investors chase returns into year-end. In recent months, investors have been sitting on large cash piles, reluctant to commit capital in an environment of higher political risk premia and on worries that central bank policies are losing their effectiveness. According to Barclays [1], Trump’s election victory has accelerated flows out of bonds and into equity markets: $27.5 billion into equities in the week ending 16th November, and $18.1 billion out of bonds. This represents a sizeable reversal of the year-to-date trend of money being put into bond markets away from equities (circa $500 billion). It has not been a simple shift into broad-based equities, however. Donald Trump by michael Vadon (CC-BY-SA-4.0) Unlike the risk-on/risk-off environment seen in the last few years, there now appears to be greater segmentation between asset classes and sectors. Of the total equity inflows, the primary beneficiary has been US equities, specifically smaller companies, financials and industrials. In contrast, total equity fund flows in emerging markets, Japan and bond proxy sectors (utilities, consumers and telecom) all reported outflows. Moreover, active managers have not benefited, with investors preferring to invest in US equity exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Can the US equity melt-up continue? Investors are looking for reasons to invest in what have been fairly moribund markets since the summer. The US election result has prompted a revision of future expectations, shifting the narrative of markets to perceptions of reflation and higher growth, fuelled by infrastructure spending and tax cuts. Of course, any actual policies have yet to be implemented and little is still known about the incoming Trump presidency. Trump has sketched out a policy plan in the first 100 days, which includes, among other things, pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, promoting production and innovation and loosening environmental restrictions to boost shale and clean coal industries. There has also been some backtracking from the campaign rhetoric on a number of issues, including Climate Change. [1] Performance dispersion and redemptions, Barclays Equity Research, 23rd November 201620 Dec
Increased risk of blood clots soon after starting testosterone treatment - Risk peaks rapidly in first six months and declines gradually thereafter Starting testosterone treatment is associated with an increased risk of serious blood clots (known as venous thromboembolism or VTE) that peaks within six months and declines gradually thereafter, concludes a study in The BMJ today. Although the increased risks are temporary, and still relatively low in absolute terms,  the researchers warn that failure to investigate the timing and duration of testosterone use in previous studies could have masked this association. Over the first decade of this century there has been a striking increase in testosterone prescribing in men, mainly for sexual dysfunction and/or decreased energy. Studies have reported contradictory results on an association between testosterone use and the risk of VTE, but failure to investigate the timing and duration of use may explain the conflicting findings. In June 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada required a warning about the risk of VTE to be displayed on all approved testosterone products. So an international team of researchers set out to determine the risk of VTE associated with use of testosterone treatment in men, focusing particularly on the timing of the risk. The study involved data from 19,215 patients with confirmed VTE and 909,530 age-matched controls from over 2.2 million men registered with the UK Clinical Practice Research Database between January 2001 and May 2013. Three mutually exclusive testosterone exposure groups were identified: current treatment, recent (but not current) treatment, and no treatment in the previous two years. Current treatment was subdivided into duration of more or less than six months. VTE was defined as comprising deep vein thrombosis (leg clot) and pulmonary embolism (lung clot). After taking account of potentially influential factors, the researchers estimated rates of VTE in association with current testosterone treatment compared with no treatment. In the first six months of testosterone treatment, they found a 63% increased risk of VTE among current testosterone users, corresponding to 10 additional VTEs above the base rate of 15.8 per 10,000 person years. The risk declined substantially after more than six months’ treatment and after treatment stopped. This is an observational study so no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect, say the authors. And they stress that the increased risks are temporary, and still relatively low in absolute terms. Nevertheless, they say their study suggests “a transient increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism that peaks during the first three to six months and declines gradually thereafter.” And they add that failure to investigate the timing of venous thromboembolisms in relation to the duration of testosterone use “could result in masking of an existing transient association.” “Future research is needed to confirm this temporal increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism and to investigate the risk in first time testosterone users and confirm the absence of risk with long term use,” they conclude.20 Dec

Egyptian Chronicles

A UN Security council draft resolution tale - Since Thursday, there has been nothing I have following politically except the UN security draft resolution to end Israeli settlements in West Bank drama.I was really happy Thursday morning to know that Egypt presented on behalf of the Arab league and the Arab States a draft UN security council resolution that "considers the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 illegal".The UN security council would vote on it Thursday evening Cairo Local time.Then came Thursday afternoon with ongoing drama that started with the US-elected President Donald Trump's tweet demanding current President Obama to veto the resolution.The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed....cont: https://t.co/s8rXKKZNF1— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2016That statement was not strange for me because after all Trump's in-laws donated for the construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank according to Israeli Haaretz Daily.The reports came afterward from Tel Aviv and New York that Israel is using all its powers to stop this resolution from going forwards.The News came from Tel Aviv that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors are using all kinds of pressure to make Egypt withdraw this resolution.Normally as Egyptian and Arab, I know that usually those kinds of resolutions are met with US Vetoes but it never hurts to try.A similar draft resolution was presented in 2011 and was vetoed by the States.Then the news came that Egypt decided to postpone the vote after those alleged Israeli pressures per Israeli and international media Thursday afternoon.At the same time, it was spread in the media through Western diplomats that the US would have abstained for the first time if the vote had taken place.Sisi and Trump in New York earlier in September"Egyptian Presidency" The Egyptian foreign ministry spokesperson Ahmed Abu Zeid told Sky News Arabia that Egypt decided to ask for postponing the vote for further consultations on the resolution whether with the Arab states group in the UN or at the Arab League's Committee to End the occupation in Cairo.The League's committee is made up by Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Palestine and it is the one that drafted the original draft resolution.According to the statement published by Sky News Arabia at 5:57 PM, the Arab League's committee decided on Monday to evaluate the chances of passing that resolution.At 7: 2 PM Cairo Local time,  US-based Al-Hurra TV channel diplomatic correspondent in the UN Nabil Abi Saab quoted Egypt's ambassador to the UN Amr Abo Al-Atta saying that he would wait for the instructions from Arab foreign ministers "aka the committee in Cairo" at 1 PM EST.Breaking - UN #Egypt Ambassador Abo Alatta: We’ll wait for instructions 1 pm from Arab Foreign Ministers re voting on the “Arab" resolution— Nabil Abi Saab (@NabilAbiSaab) December 22, 20161 PM EST means 8 PM Cairo local time.At nearly 10 PM Local time, the Egyptian Presidency announced that President-election Trump called President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi on the phone Thursday evening to discuss a number of issues above them the UNSC draft resolution of Israeli settlement. According to the official statement released by President El-Sisi's office, the two agreed to postpone the UNSC resolution because:" The two leaders agreed on the importance of giving the new administration a chance to deal comprehensively with all the aspects of the Palestinian issue to achieve a comprehensive, final settlement to the issue" So officially we got here another reason other than consultations with other Arab countries about resolution.The Pro-regime supporters cheered for that victory on how El-Sisi won Trump as he made Obama miss the opportunity to "score a point".They also spoke about how Egypt regained its leading role.First, this talk is just the streetwise "not-so-wise" of Pro-regime supporters who believe that Trump is better than Obama because he hates Islamists. Trump and his administration hate Muslims not just Islamists.Unfortunately, those people do not know that Donald Trump administration seems to be worse than the Obama's administration when it comes to the Palestinian issue with its complete total bias towards hardliners in Israel.The man is already nominating a hardline right-wing Zionist bankruptcy lawyer as the next US ambassador to Israel who does not believe or want the 2-state solution !!Second, I think the issue of illegal settlements is more important than scoring points or having deals regardless what if we are going to speak about the true Egyptian leading role in the region.Thursday night in New York, things were really hard to the Egypt's mission to the UN.New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal that co-sponsored the draft resolution as UNSC non-permanent members told Egypt if Cairo did not have a clear position by the end of the day in an official memo, they reserved the right the right to proceed to put it to vote on Friday.The Palestinian mission to the UN was part of that memo as well.Friday afternoon, Egypt's State News agency MENA quoted an anonymous Egyptian diplomatic source saying Egypt postponed the draft resolution's vote is evidence of the deep vision of the current Egyptian administration because the UNSC issued more powerful resolutions against Israel and Tel Aviv totally ignored them in the past !!The source added that it was clear that the Obama administration wanted to restrain Trump administration from taking "decisive decisions for a comprehensive settlement for Palestine !!"Hours later, Egypt's mission to the UN withdrew the draft resolution completely.And so New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal proceeded to put it to vote.After request from co-sponsors New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela - #UNSC will vote on #MiddleEast resolution at 2 pm (8am NZ)— NZ Mission to the UN (@NZUN) December 23, 2016And so at 2 PM EST in a historical session by all means at the UN Security council, 15-member council adopted the resolution by a 14-vote in favor with one abstention: The United States.مجلس الأمن يعتمد قرارا يطالب #إسرائيل بوقف الاستيطان بأغلبية 14 صوتا وإمتناع الولايات المتحدة عن التصويت pic.twitter.com/Ptsr1zxbaY— الأمم المتحدة (@UNarabic) December 23, 2016And as former Egyptian FM Amr Moussa said that Egypt did good by voting in favor of the resolution. "He praised Obama"Yes, thank God Egypt's mission voted in favor the resolution.Friday evening, Ambassador Abo El-Ata told Extra News that Egypt had to withdraw the draft resolution because of "the political outbidding that reached to the levels of warning" referring to the memo of New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela.On Saturday, Egypt's MOFA spokesperson said that Egypt had to withdraw the draft resolution because it was worried that the United States or any other country would use the veto !!Now the pro-regime media whether the mainstream or social media is claiming that what happened is actually a victory for Egyptian diplomacy because the draft resolution passed and we won Trump's administration !!!I do not know how it is a "true" victory for Egyptian diplomacy nor how we got Trump's administration's support.The Pro-Sisi supporters are also spreading rumors that the Egyptian mission "did not withdraw" the draft resolution which is untrue but it seems that Pro-regimeTrump's call with Sisi and presidency's call readout are completely ignored.The true victory is Palestinian victory without a doubt. It is Palestine's Christmas present.The security council while voting and you can see the US ambassadorSamantha Power abstaining" Karel van Oostersom, head of Netherlands mission to the UN" Total respect for Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela for putting international laws and human rights above all measure.Israel won't respect that UN Security council resolution just like the other UN security council resolutions issued before above them the withdrawal of the land it occupied in 1967 where it is currently building illegal settlements.Still, this is an important unprecedented resolution.It is the first time since God knows when that United States does not veto a resolution against Israel.It is the first time since God know when the security council countries voted for a resolution like that except one country that abstained.I will quote Mohamed ElBaradei and what he said on Friday here.مجلس الأمن :المستوطنات تشكل انتهاكا للقانون الدولى. من المؤسف أيا كانت الضغوط والمصالح الضيقة أن نفقد بوصلتنا القومية أو التزامنا الأخلاقي— Mohamed ElBaradei (@ElBaradei) December 23, 2016"The security council: The settlements are a violation of the international laws. Regardless of whatever pressure and narrow interest, it is unfortunate to lose our national compass or our moral obligation"It is worth to mention that Egypt among 52 countries abstained to vote for establishing a special independent panel to investigate war crimes in Syria earlier last week.I feel angry that my country had an opportunity to create a difference for the Arab people twice in UN security council twice and it let them down because of political shortsighted vision.We are losing officially moral obligation towards our fellow Arabs. 24 Dec
Happy Holidays from Egyptian Chronicles - Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah to all those celebrating tonight all over the globe from Egyptian Chronicles. Once upon time Egyptian cigarettes were aChristmas gift !!!Happy Holidays  24 Dec
Blocking and unblocking Signal in Egypt - On Monday, Open Whisper System confirmed that its private messaging app "Signal" has been censored in Egypt after numerous reports over the weekend.Over this weekend users of Signal in Egypt "including myself" reported that they could not connect to Signal through major ISPs.Personally, I did face this and I could not connect to Signal through Orange 3G and 4G networks as well through TEData, Egypt's main ISP.According to reports, you can use the famous encrypted messaging service through VPN. On Monday, Open Whisper System confirmed that you can only access Signal throughWe'll begin deploying censorship circumvention in Signal over the next several weeks. Until then, Tor or a VPN can be used to access Signal.— Open Whisper Systems (@whispersystems) December 19, 2016Interestingly, the service would connect and disconnect throughout the weekend. On Tuesday, the service is back again on TEData. I do not know what is really happening. Signal earned fame in Egypt when it was reported that Italian investigators used it to communicate with Rome during their first visit to Cairo to investigate Italian researcher Giulio Regeni's murder. It is not a big secret that the security authorities in Egypt above them the ministry of interior monitor social networks after 2013. Seems to me that encrypted Signal caught the attention of authorities and it was found that it could not be monitored easily, thus it was decided to block it altogether.Great days indeed.  20 Dec
The unforgettable scene : Russian ambassador to Ankara's assassination - It was meant to be a scene to be remembered by the whole world when it was planned, it was meant to be a message heard in the whole world.Thus Russian ambassador to Turkey 1954-born Andrei Karlov was shot down by 22-years old Turkish policeman Mevlut Mert Aydintas at the Contemporary Arts center in the Turkish capital where the Russian embassy was hosting "Russia in the eyes of Turks" exhibition.Mevlut Mert Aydinatas killed the Russian ambassador because of Syria and Aleppo.That moment captured by AP's Burhan OzbiliciAs we live the age of social media, the assassination was recorded and the whole world saw Aydinates standing like defocused black grim reaper behind Karlov minutes before he would pull his gun shooting him down.It was a matter of minutes as captured by AP's Burhan OzbiliciMoments AP photographer Burhan Ozbilici did not know that moment that he would snap a moment that would turn lives upside down.The man went to the exhibition because it was on his way from work to home !!22-years old Turkish police officer Aydintas by AP's Burhan Ozbilici "Do not forget Aleppo, do not forget Syria, only death can take me from here" The young Turkish police officer declared in Turkish in his Arab-Turkish short speech before he was shot down in his fancy suit.As an Egyptian tweep said, Turkish drama does not come from nothing  !!!Karlov is the second Russian ambassador to be assassinated in service since the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Poland in 1927 according to NY Times.22-years old Turkish police officer Aydintas by AP's Burhan Ozbilici I do not know Turkish to follow Turkish news reports and I do not trust Russian media.What I see that young 22-years old police officer can not be the sole planner of such act.From true Islamic religious point of view, ambassadors are prohibited to be killed or attacked.But tonight it was real about Islam despite the short old poetic verses the young Turk said in Arabic, it was about Aleppo and Syria.Many Arab social media users are cheering for the assassination of the ambassador wondering why they would care for the ambassador when Russia killed thousands in Syria directly and indirectly and the world stood still. I saw even a poem in Arabic dedicated to Aydintas who avenged for the nation not only for Syria.Two wrongs do not make right ... in a perfect world and we are not in a perfect world. All lines are blurred.I can safely say from what I see only that there are growing anti-Russian sentiments as well anti-Iranian sentiments because of Syria that are replacing the anti-American sentiments.Today I read that the Russian state TV described the murder of the US ambassador to Libya in Benghazi in 2012 as a boomerang effect for the US intervention in the region.I think Russia was hit by this boomerang tonight.All what, I know for sure now the blood cycle won't stop. 19 Dec
The attack on media figures at El-Botroseya Church : Beyond the anger - Earlier Monday, Cairo witnessed the funerals of 23 Egyptian Christians after their murder in the awful El-Botroseya Church bombing.In the afternoon and during the official funeral ceremony, Egypt's President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi announced for the first time the name of the suspected suicide bomber who allegedly blew up the Church.On the same day, the interior ministry issued a  statement accusing the Muslim Brotherhood of standing behind the attack.Then Daesh declared its responsibility for the bombing on Tuesday.Since Monday, the debates and conspiracy theories have not stopped about whether this suspect did it or not. In nutshell, many people disbelieve the government and ISIS. To be precise the government more because simply the government or the Egyptian regime is not the most transparent one.I won't go into details about that. I won't speak either about terrorism and the situation of Egyptian Christians because there is nothing more or new can be said.All what can be and should be said in those two matters have been said before and I am afraid we are going to say it again. "Hopefully not"I would like to speak now about something that happened following the bombing of the church that nobody spoke about as it should.After the explosion, at least three prominent Pro-regime TV hosts were attacked by angry Egyptian Christians protesting outside the church.Hundreds of angry Egyptian Christians protested angrily for several hours outside El-Botroseya Church, which is beside the main St. Marks Coptic Orthodox Cathedral Church in Cairo. They were so angry that they did not let the minister of interior to visited the bombed church.They also attacked and kicked out those Pro-hosts in a way that makes you ask questions about the public and the propaganda.Notorious anti-25 January TV host Ahmed Moussa was attacked and kicked outside the Church as he attempted to interview the people on air for his Ultra-Pro-regime/Close to the regime.Here is a videoKicking out Ahmed Moussa as filmed by Al-Masry Al-YoumIt is worth to mention those who were following him on TV said that the channel stopped the live broadcast from the Church when people began to attack the security and the ministry of interior.Then we got bigger-than-life Riham Saeed who was also attacked and kicked out by the angry people there.Here are videosAttacking and kicking out Riham Saeed as filmed by Al-Masry Al-YoumKicking out Riham Saeed as filmed by Tahrir newsFor the record Riham Saeed and Ahmed Moussa are used to that.Saeed was kicked out of Ras Gharib town in Red Sea governorate two months ago after the heavy rains and floods when she began to praise the governor whom the people demanded his dismissal.Moussa is used to be attacked and beaten by Muslim Brotherhood supporters abroad whenever he accompanies El-Sisi in tours whether in Europe or the US.Then we got the attack of Lamis El-Hadidy, the worst attack of all.Here are the videos speaking about the attackThe attack on Lamis El-Hadidy as filmed by VETOالاعتداء بالضرب على #لميس_الحديدي، وطردها من أمام #كاتدرائية_العباسية pic.twitter.com/5bbCKC5P0l— التحرير الإخباري (@TahrirNews) December 11, 2016 Former TV host and current MP Abdel Rahim Ali is said to be attacked and kicked out of the Church and its surrounding area by angry protesters.I have not seen videos or photos of him being attacked.The three appeared later on TV care less vowing that those who attacked them would be arrested describing them as infiltrators and Muslim Brotherhood members because they got beards !!Christian men also grow beards also.What happened to those TV hosts and reporters speaks about something bigger and makes us wonder if something has changed in the public mood.Those are well known Pro-regime TV hosts who present the regime's views on a daily and weekly basis, especially in the past three years.Allegedly those TV hosts are the most powerful and most watched but it seems no more.In the first real public anger, those TV hosts were attacked in Egypt like that.Lamis El-Hadidy protected by some man from theangry protester "Screenshot"I do not know if they were attacked because they represent the regime or the people had enough from their lies or they just hate them personally.What I know that the regime is losing credibility with the people. We should not forget that those people who attacked them are from the Egyptian Christians, whom the regime considered to be on its side.But the regime itself forgets that they only support it for fear of Islamist groups and for the sake of security only.The regime also forgets that public in Egypt are dumb, the majority used to watch to Bassem Youssef every week to make fun of those TV hosts and their hypocrisy and ignorance.Many people cheered for their attack especially Ahmed Moussa and Lamis El-Hadidybecause of their incitement in the past against other Egyptians including activists.The trio is considered masters in incitements and there is no doubt in a democratic Egypt that triumphs human rights , laws and citizenships they will be held accountable for what they say.I totally understand their view.When I read the news of Ahmed Moussa , all what I can think about it was karma.But then I saw the videos of Lamis El-Hadidy and the horror look on her face and how people reacted. It was terrifying.I think we should be worried a lot because what we saw in the video is extremely anger that can explode at any time.This little incident can speak a lot  17 Dec
And Daesh claims responsibility of Cairo church bombing - Tuesday evening, Daesh militant group claimed responsibility for El-Botroseya church bombing in Cairo on Sunday that killed at least 24 people and injured over 40 others.The group claimed in a statement released Tuesday evening online first reportedly on its affiliated Telegram channels that a suicide bomber with a code name of “Abu Abdullah El-Masry” blew up himself inside St.Peter and St.Paul Cathedral in Cairo using an explosive belt.The statement Daesh News agency Amaq then released a breaking news quoting a security source "inside the militant group" that one of its members blew up himself in the church. Surreal times for real when a terrorist group media outlet quotes a "security source" inside it !!  During the official statement funeral on Monday, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah El-Sisi announced that 22-years old Mahmoud Shafiq Mohamed was the suicide bomber.  He also added that four other people including a woman were arrested by security forces for their involvement in the attack. Monday evening, the Egyptian ministry of interior released a detailed statement about the suspects arrested prior accusing the Muslim Brotherhood of standing behind the attack.The official statement also spoke about Mahmoud Shafiq and his role hinting out that his code name was “Abu Dagana El-Kinany”. Now people are wondering if "Abu Dagana El-Kinany" was "Abu Abdullah El-Masry" or what.  Despite the statement declares it clearly that Daesh behind the bombing and not the Muslim Brotherhood, the official and mainstream media in Egypt is happy that the ministry of interior was right when it said it was a suicide bombing.  Yes, because ironically people had a lot of doubts online and offline in the first 48 hours especially with the contradicting statements of the survivors and eye-witnesses as well forensics and security officials.  Then came El-Sisi's announcement followed by the interior ministry's statement and many people were just amazed on how quickly the police investigations reached to the identities of the suspects. We are being told that it only took 7 hours to get the DNA of the suspected suicide bombers.   Following that we had the statements of the alleged/suspected suicide bomber's family insisting he "Mahmoud Shafik" in Sudan and he did not do it demanding to see "that body".  Now we got Daesh admitting that it was the one behind it and this is a new scary reality or.. not even new. Yes, not a new reality because Daesh has been in the Nile Valley for awhile but people are either not paying attention or have forgotten. This is not the first Daesh operation or a group affiliated with Daesh operation in Cairo or in Nile Valley.  In 2014 and 2015, the Sinai-based Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis claimed responsibility for several big operations including the bombing of Sharkia and Cairo security directorates.  In July 2015, the Italian consulate in Cairo was bombed if you remembered and a Daesh affiliated group called " Egypt province" or "Egypt state" claimed responsibility officially. People forgot this. Interestingly, the statement did not mention which affiliated group was responsible for the attack, unlike other previous statements where Daesh Sinai-based affiliated group "Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis" claimed responsibility for its endless attacks. This raised questions.  Update: The Sinai-based militant group released a photo of the alleged suicide bomber masked using his code name only. The alleged suicide bomber Some say that the eyes of the alleged suicide bomber are identical to Mahmoud Shafik's mugshot released by the ministry of interior. Suspected suicide bomber MahmoudShafikShafik was previously arrested in 2014 by security forces in Fayoum during a Pro-MB protest and was accused along with another young man of carrying weapons including a hand grenade.  He was released later after he was proved to be innocent of the charges. His lawyer stated online that he said that he was subjected to torture during his arrest.  After his release in 2015, he tried to resume his life and studies but then he vanished. His family says that he went to live and work in Sudan "allegedly still alive".  Security sources say that he headed to North Sinai.   His father is a former army officer. Both his father and brother are currently detained as I have read.  Back to Daesh.  Some say that this operation is a shift in targets for Daesh. groups that used to target mainly police and army but also those people forgot that Daesh's branch in North Sinai is making the lives of Egyptian Christians like hell.  Also, we should not forget the Egyptian Christian workers who were slaughtered by Daesh in Libya in 2015.Unlike most people, I do not consider North Sinai an alien part outside Egypt or what happened in Libya as something not related to Egypt.Egyptian Christians are on the target list of Daesh from a long time but some like to bury their heads in the sand and consider what happened "terrorist's frustration and jealousy of our success".You must know that according to several released detainees and prisoners, Daesh support among young prisoners is spreading unfortunately in prisons. Daesh inmates and Muslim Brotherhood inmates are said to have ugly nasty fights till death over control and ideological differences. Yes, we have to be afraid because the current Egyptian administration will fight terrorism just like in the 1980s and 1990s using the same old methods that did not actually succeed in ending radicalism or terrorism because if the old methods did work, why we would see new terrorist organizations and terrorists in our country !?I am tired of repeating what has been said before thousands time, of stating the obvious.One can only pray now in those dark days for better future.  15 Dec
Seen in Alexandria : Was it a bird ? - Was it a bird? Was it a plane? Was it a shooting star during one fine sunset ??I do not know.I only know that I need to remember that short family spring break and enjoy those photos to have a break from that hard time in Egypt.    14 Dec
The explosion of the Coptic Cathedral complex : A new level of terror - At 10:30 AM a huge explosion that took place near the Egyptian Coptic Cathedral in Heliopolis.After the end of the Sunday ,an explosion took place in the Small church of St. Peter and St. Paul "El-Botroseya" which is near the complex of the main Coptic Cathedral.Inside the Church " Bassam Abu Zeid" According to the ministry of health , at least 25 people were killed and 35 were injured mostly from women and children. The explosion took place in the women and children's section.May God bless the souls of the victims.According to security forces , a woman entered the church and sat in the Women's section while carrying a huge bag full of explosions "between 6-12 KG" !!No terrorist organized has claimed its responsibility.This is the biggest terrorist attack against Coptic Egyptians since the Two Saints Church explosion in Alexandria in December 2010.In fact, the death toll of this attack is higher than Two Saints Church explosion.It is worth to mention that after six years we do not know really who bombed the Two Saints Church explosion.Today marks the Moulid El-Nabawy "Prophet Mohamed {PBUH} birthday" and officially it is a national holiday.Live Coverage below 11 Dec
The arrest and release of Azza Soliman and that other trial - At exactly 1:39 PM Cairo local time Wednesday , the family of Egyptian lawyer and renowned woman right Azza Soliman announced that security forces arrested her from her house by the investigation judge in the infamous NGOs case.Azza Soliman Her son Nadeem Abdel Gawad kept the people updated as the head and co-founder of Centre for Egyptian Women Legal Assistance (CEWLA) moved from Misr El-Gedida police station to New Cairo Court to be questioned by the investigation judge in the infamous case.For nearly seven or eight hours and accompanied by many lawyers and human rights activist , Soliman was questioned by the judge over the accusations of receiving foreign funds with an aim to harm the national security , founding an illegal entity that engages in NGO activity "!!!!" and tax  evasion !!!After nearly 8 hours , she was released on LE 20,000 bail pending investigation in the infamous case.Azza Soliman made the headlines technically in Egypt as foreign media focused on her case as another sign of the crackdown on civil society and NGOs as well human rights activists.It  also came days after passing the infamous NGOs law.She and a number of human rights activists including Gamal Eid and Mozn Hassan are barred from travel and their assets have been frozen as the Justice ministry re-opened the investigation of the old illegal foreign funding case in March.Now as I hinted above , all the media focused on the NGOs case but they forgot a very critical and important fact about Soliman.Azza Soliman is a key eye-witness in the trial of Shaimaa El-Sabbagh or to be accurate the retrial of Shaimaa El-Sabbagh.Since coming forward on 25 January 2015 with her testimony publicly on the shooting of El-Sabbagh and Soliman began to face trouble.  Above , the famous testimony of Soliman on how she witnessed what happened at Talaat Harb square on that 24 January 2015First , she found herself accused of illegal protesting  during the trial of El-Sabbagh instead of being an eye-witness !! Then the court acquitted her !!In June 2015, a police officer was sentenced to 15-years in jail for manslaughter in the leftist activist murder case but then in February 2016 an appeal court overturned the conviction and ordered a retrial.Now, the question running in mind since knowing the news of Soliman's arrest : Will she be included to the retrial as an eye-witness or her testimony will be excluded because of her legal trouble !???? 7 Dec
Egypt's Internet trolls : The Union "Ep.1" - The international media is currently having a long serious discussion about fake news and internet trolls in the social media.Only after the US presidential elections and its results, the world decided to put the spotlight on that dark use of social media.Only , now we got Mark Zuckerberg speaking about how  misinformation spreaders are using his platform and how to fight back for the first time. Sadly , we know very well about fake news or how Zuckerberg described it as "misinformation" and its impact first hand in the Middle East especially in the Arab spring countries before the west or the US but nobody cared till it reached to the States.The social media is always highlighted for its role in the Arab spring, especially in the EgyptianOnce upon time in 2011 "Reuters" revolution.Well, I think it is time to let the world knows that the social media is also destroying the Arab Spring.Ironically at the same time, the West was speaking about the fake news and the Russian machine propaganda, we had our own "fake news scandal" in November.It came unexpectedly out of the blue when one of the biggest Pro-regime conspiracy theorists exposed how the so-callede-committees aka Pro-regime internet trolls work from inside.Nobody is speaking about it any more thought in Egypt, so I thought it was good to bring it back. It gives you a glimpse of our own in-house problemOn 5 November Pro-regime supporter/university professor/social media celebrity Khaled Refaat published a Facebook post on his account with screenshots from a closed Pro-regime Facebook group for exposing who they are and how they are organizing themselves online.The story started with a fight inside the group  when Refaat seemed to violate the rule of not criticizing El-Sisi outside it and being vocal about it.Soon , he began to criticize the group indirectly describing it as an "e-committee" on his FB account.It seems that the members of the groups attacked and being reported him to the Facebook to close his account in return.In retaliation, he decided to bring down the temple by speaking directly about that group posting screenshots from showing its admins giving directives its members.That Facebook group is "State supporters union" and according to Refaat , it was founded allegedly by Media figure Ibrahim El-Garhi.Refaat added that El-Garhi included nearly 22 admins from famous figures known for their support to the regime and their hate to the 25 January revolution judging from the names. "Very interesting names but I won't have the time to speak about them specifically".According to Refaat , they were gathered to have discussions in one place.The group was a private one by an invitation and it reached at one point 14,000 members according to the screenshots.The screenshots included one where El-Garhi told the members not to criticize the government's economic decision outside the group as well an order to spread posts supporting current Central Bank governor Tarek Amer.There was another interesting post by a member or admin in the group calling the members to spread "positive news" or "rumors" to weaken the US dollar in Egypt !!Another interesting screenshot , Refaat posted was how one of the admins suggested to pick one of "junkies" aka "25 January revolution" activists and make comics and fun of her or him.Another screenshot included posts from admins telling members to report opponent pages. Interestingly in that screenshot, there is a mention of a group called "Mafia Battalion" whose role is to monitor international and foreign news websites.  Now what was known for real is the group was founded reportedly by a dentist called Shaimaa Refaat on 22 October who made El-Garhi and others as admins.Two admins of that Facebook were among the main speakers at El-Sisi's National Youth Conference : Ibrahim El-Garhi and Mohamed Negm.El-Garhi had an interesting opinion during the conference that the media and journalists in Egypt "believe that they can shape the public opinion in Egypt" demanding strict penalty laws against journalists !!Negm is considered an economic expert on Facebook who does not see a problem that Egypt suffers from corruption because China suffers from corruption among other things.Oh, he also says that people should not get involved with politics just like in India !! Yes, the biggest democracy on earth !!After coming out to the light Despite the group was exposed , it is active and its membership grew to more than 50,000.According to what I have heard , many people were added without their knowledge by the administrators as the group came under the spotlight.Boldly Ibrahim El-Garhi defended himself in a long sponsored FB post to spread on Facebook insisting that he did not do anything wrong.  The former reporter says that he is not ashamed and that he is defending Egypt.He will also continue defending and supporting the current regime.I cannot find that post anymore on El-Garhi's official Facebook page which got more than one million fans.Pro-regime Youm 7 and its sister sites publish from time to time news on how the group launches hashtags on twitter to fight the "enemy of the state" and how they are successful in beating Qataris and MBs online.The Youm7 managing editor Dandarawy El-Hawary is from the admins of the FB.Nobody speaks about this group anymore or what they do.This is what you can consider a normalization of something totally wrong.A history of Web brigades/internet trolling The e-committees aka Internet trolls aka Web brigades are not something new in Egypt.The web brigades appeared in Egypt when Gamal Mubarak and NDP had their own "e-committees" or "internet trolls" in 2009 according to blogger/journalist and social media expert Mohamed Atef. I remember those days.Those trolls did not stop after the 25 January revolution.After the revolution and the ouster of Mubarak as well the rise of social , we were introduced to the MB internet trolls that have been active in Morsi's short presidential term.They disappeared after the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood dramatically but they have been replaced actively and strongly by the Pro-Sisi/state internet trolls.The same techniques and the same misinformation that hurts the nation for real.In April , El-Sisi himself stated that he could send two brigades to close down the "net" while he was criticizing the social media.Social media is a double-aged weapon. I think that Freedom of expression can end Internet trolling but internet trolling is taking an advantage of Freedom of expression and democracy in the worst way ever.I have got no problem with Pro-regime supporters online as long as they do not troll others or spread misinformation.I do not know how we can end this problem globally but I know when Egypt gets its true democratically elected civilian regime which will be held accountable on every single move in front of  true democratically elected parliament and the Egyptian people, those Pro-regime web brigades will disappear forever.To those members of Web brigades who think that they are doing their patriotic duty by defaming and spreading lies about dissidents and fake victories, one day you will regret that and you will know that you have hurt and harmed your country more than any enemy could have done.In those difficult days , I pray to God to help Egypt. 5 Dec

FPIF Latest Content

Trump’s Israel Ambassador Pick Should Set Off Alarm Bells - (Photo: Cycling Man / Flickr) With his nomination of attorney David Friedman as the new United States Ambassador to Israel, President-elect Donald Trump has sent a very clear message that he intends to shift U.S. policy away from its decades-long commitment to ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and establishing an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. That commitment represents not only a strong American political consensus, but an overwhelming international consensus as well. Friedman’s views can only be described as radical. He is an avowed opponent of the two-state solution, which he has called “an illusion that serves the worst intentions of both the United States and the Palestinian Arabs.” He supports the United States moving its embassy to Jerusalem, which security experts have warned would be a needless provocation that could further inflame the region, and has described the State Department (which, should he be confirmed, he will be working for) as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. He has even called supporters of the pro-Israel, pro-peace group J Street “worse than kapos” (these were Jews who served as middlemen for the Nazis in World War II), and heads fundraising for one of the most radical pro-settler organizations in the world. Friedman’s approach to the issue of peace is clear enough: Whatever Israel’s right-wing government wants, the United States should give, and Israel alone will decide what the Palestinians will get. According to Friedman, “the Israelis have done a magnificent job of balancing their internal needs for security, which no other nation in the world has, against their incredible track record of granting human rights to their entire population.” Friedman’s statement clearly contradicts every human rights organization in the world, including in the United States and Israel, as well as the State Department. It also suggests a troubling detachment from the reality of the conflict on the ground. Friedman is the President of the American Friends of Beit El Institutions organization, a non-profit that raises some $2 million per year for the Beit El settlement. Significant portions of the money raised go to the yeshiva (Jewish religious school) in Beit El, headed by Rabbi Zalman Melamed. Rabbi Melamed has stated that evacuating settlements is a sin against Jewish law. During the Israeli withdrawal of its settlements from Gaza in 2005, Melamed even went so far as to call on soldiers to disobey orders to evacuate settlers. Friedman, then, is not just a supporter of settlement expansion, but of the most radical elements in the settler movement. If Friedman’s nomination is an indication of Trump administration policy on Israel-Palestine, the United States is going to deepen the conflict in which Israelis and Palestinians are embroiled. This risks seriously damaging US interests in the region, further violating Palestinians’ basic human rights, and compromising Israeli security. The post Trump’s Israel Ambassador Pick Should Set Off Alarm Bells appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. Mitchell Plitnick is vice president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. 21 Dec
The Final Obama Doctrine? Racking Up the Body Count - (Photo: U.S. Army / Flickr) During its final years in office, the Obama administration has devised a new form of warfare with major implications for how the U.S. government confronts its enemies. With the ability to quickly locate and eliminate potential adversaries with little to no risk to U.S. forces, the Obama administration has begun to eradicate some of its main enemies in a new kind of exterminatory warfare. So far, the Obama administration has applied its innovation to militant groups throughout the Middle East and the surrounding area. Its primary target has been the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), but it has expanded its campaign to include IS forces in Libya and al-Shabab in Somalia. Remarkably, administration officials have made no secret of their intentions. Receiving significant cooperation from their allies and facing no serious opposition from the U.S. public, administration officials have confirmed that they intend to eradicate their targets as quickly as possible. They have promised to maintain their operations through the end of their time in office, and they expect to see comparable operations maintained well into the future. The Goal: Eradicate ISIS The Obama administration first began to develop its new model of exterminatory warfare in the late summer of 2014 when it faced a significant new challenge from IS. As IS began to acquire control of large parts of Iraq and Syria, the Obama administration began working on a new military approach to confront the militant group and eventually wipe it out. On September 10, 2014, the day before the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Obama introduced his administration’s plans in a speech to the nation. From the White House, Obama announced that he had initiated a new military program to “degrade,” “destroy,” and “eradicate” IS. The military campaign “will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist,” he specified. With his remarks, Obama introduced a new military program to completely eliminate IS, saying that he hoped to contribute to a broader trend in world history in which “those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth.” In the time since Obama announced the plans, additional officials have articulated similar goals. Although U.S. officials do not typically announce that they are planning to vanquish certain forces from the Earth, a number of administration officials have left no doubt that they intend to completely eradicate IS. This past June, State Department official Brett McGurk provided the most direct confirmation of the administration’s intentions. After presenting the White House press corps with a map that showed various areas that remained under the control of IS, McGurk stated that “we have to wipe them off this map.” A few months later, Secretary of State John Kerry made a comparable point. As he worked to put together a new program for the U.S. and Russian governments to work together to target militant groups in Syria, Kerry said that both the United States and Russia “have a mutual interest” in “terminating ISIL/Daesh, as fast as possible.” Earlier this month, Colonel John Dorrian provided additional confirmation. Speaking to the Pentagon press corps, Dorrian announced that the U.S. government is working to terminate IS forces in the Iraqi city of Mosul, where coalition forces are now battling the militant group. The IS forces “are really the worst people in the world, and they have to be eradicated from Mosul as efficiently and as quickly as possible,” Dorrian stated. As part of the campaign, U.S. forces have also devastated IS forces to the west of Mosul. ”We’ve conducted various strikes out there,” Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend, the commander of coalition forces, acknowledged in a separate press briefing. “I don’t require a lot of justification for doing that,” he added. “There is ISIL out there that needs killing, so we’re killing them.” Indeed, U.S. officials are waging a major military campaign to eradicate IS. Arguing that that the militant group poses a special threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world, they have made it their goal to completely eliminate the organization. “We want to wipe ISIL entirely off this map,” McGurk confirmed once again this past week. In other words, U.S. officials have decided to wage exterminatory warfare against IS. Assassinating Leaders To wage exterminatory warfare against the Islamic State, the Obama administration has employed a number of specific measures. Taking advantage of the extraordinary air power of the U.S. military, the Obama administration has waged an unprecedented air campaign to kill its targets. The Obama administration has been especially effective at killing IS’s senior leaders. Since its first began its military campaign against IS in August 2014, the Obama administration has killed hundreds of senior leaders, according to U.S. officials. “It’s a short career as a leader in ISIL,” U.S. Colonel Steve Warren acknowledged during a press briefing in March 2016. “You’re not going to last very long. You won’t make it to retirement.” The main reason, Warren specified, is that coalition forces are constantly killing IS leaders as well as their replacements. “We’ll kill them,” Warren stated. In some cases, “we’ve gone three deep in a position.” Moreover, U.S. officials insist that they must continue with their assassination program. As new leaders rise to fill the ranks, U.S. officials keep targeting them for elimination. “We must keep systematically eliminating every key leader we find, and we must deny them safe haven wherever they may seek it,” Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has insisted. As they have grown increasingly effective at killing IS leaders, administration officials have also grown increasingly confident in their operations. For example, McGurk recently declared that the U.S. government would soon succeed in killing the Islamic State’s “caliph,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. “It’s a matter of time until we eliminate him,” McGurk stated. “His days are very much numbered.” After making his point, McGurk also confirmed that coalition forces would continue with the broader program of assassinating all IS leaders. “And those are operations we don’t always talk about, but that is happening every single day, every single night,” McGurk stated. “When we see their leaders, we make sure that their leaders are eliminated.” In short, U.S. officials are waging a major assassination program in which they are killing hundreds of IS leaders. Not only have they made it their goal to assassinate all of the current leaders of IS, but they have continuously worked to kill anyone who steps in to replace them. “And as these leaders are replaced, we target and kill their replacements,” McGurk has confirmed. Exterminating Combatants As U.S. officials have worked to systematically eliminate the Islamic State’s leaders, they have also conducted a far more extensive campaign against the militant organization. Over the past two years, U.S. officials have worked with coalition forces to launch more than 15,000 airstrikes against IS as part of a comprehensive military campaign to systematically kill as many IS fighters as possible. This past August, Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland described the extent of the campaign during a press briefing that was hosted by the Pentagon. In his statement, MacFarland explained that coalition forces have killed tens of thousands of IS fighters. “We estimate that over the past 11 months we’ve killed about 25,000 enemy fighters,” MacFarland stated. “When you add that to the 20,000 estimated killed prior to our arrival, that’s 45,000 enemy taken off the battlefield.” Moreover, MacFarland noted that it has become increasingly easy to kill IS militants. “We don’t see them operating nearly as effectively as they have in the past,” he noted. The trend “makes them even easier targets for us so as a result they’re attrition has accelerated here of late.” Continuing with his remarks, MacFarland then shared some of the reasons why IS forces have become such easy targets. For starters, he noted that the group’s leaders have been forcing noncombatants to guard various locations. “They can grab a bunch of people minding their own business off the street, throw them in the back of a pickup truck, and drop them off at a checkpoint with some AKs and say, ‘defend this checkpoint,’” MacFarland explained. “And they’ve done that. We’ve seen them do that in places.” In addition, MacFarland noted that IS leaders have begun to replace fighters with administrative people, who typically have no combat training. “We know that they’ve taken a lot of their administrative folks and pushed them out to the front lines,” MacFarland stated. “They’re not really supposed to be there.” Consequently, MacFarland found that it had become much easier to kill IS targets. “And as soon as they demonstrate hostile intent, then we’ll take them out,” he said. Through such efforts, U.S. officials have waged a devastating war against the Islamic State. By continually assassinating IS leaders and targeting any IS operatives on the battlefield, including those people who may have been forced into working for the organization, U.S. officials have killed tens of thousands of people and given very real meaning to their promise to eradicate IS. Extending the Campaign In fact, the Obama administration has recently begun to extend its campaign to eradicate the Islamic State. Viewing its program against IS in Iraq and Syria as a great success, the Obama administration has expanded its program to target the group’s other branches. This past November, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter confirmed the move when he noted that “in addition to destroying ISIL in Iraq and Syria, we’re also pursuing and destroying them everywhere else in the world.” As part of its broader mission, the Obama administration has focused much of its effort on the IS branch in Libya. Since the branch has attracted thousands of IS fighters, the Obama administration has identified the branch as its next major target for elimination. Certainly, “they need to be taken out,” a senior State Department official said earlier this year. “There’s going to be, I think, a substantial effort required to extirpate them entirely.” In June 2016, the Obama administration then began working to fulfill its objective, using the same model it was using to eradicate IS from Iraq and Syria. “They will eventually all be eliminated,” State Department official McGurk declared in late October 2016, referring to IS fighters in the Libyan city of Sirte. “That’s simply a military proposition and it is a matter of time.” Moreover, McGurk confirmed that coalition forces had already begun to achieve their objectives. “We are removing their leaders from the battlefield one by one and in a quite dramatic fashion,” he noted. In early November, McGurk then confirmed that coalition forces had largely succeeded in their efforts. Currently, “if you look at Sirte, Daesh has almost been entirely eliminated from Sirte,” McGurk observed. More recently, U.S. Special Envoy for Libya Jonathan M. Winer has also confirmed that coalition forces have largely eliminated their targets. There has been “rapid progress” in the effort “to eradicate ISIL from the city and surrounding areas,” Winer noted in a hearing before members of Congress. Indeed, the Obama administration has made swift progress in its campaign to eradicate IS fighters in Libya. Although administration officials have not disclosed exactly how many IS fighters have been killed in the operations, they made it clear that coalition forces have quickly eliminated the great bulk of their targets. Ultimately, “it was important to eliminate them” and “we did that,” Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter acknowledged last week. Applying the Model Having devised a powerful new model of exterminatory warfare, the Obama administration has also experimented with additional applications. Rather than limiting its new approach to IS and its offshoots, the Obama administration has applied its model to other militant groups around the world. Earlier this year, the Obama administration provided a powerful signal of its willingness to wage exterminatory warfare against other militant groups when it launched airstrikes against the militant group al-Shabab in Somalia, killing about 150 al-Shabab fighters in a single attack. It was “a very successful strike,” Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook announced at the time. Moreover, the strike was quite significant because of the people who were targeted. As The New York Times reported, the strike was “a sharp deviation from previous American strikes, which have concentrated on the group’s leaders, not on its foot soldiers.” In other words, the Obama administration launched the strike to eliminate al-Shabab members that could be seen as having hostile intent, just as it has been doing in Iraq and Syria. More recently, administration officials have also confirmed that they harbor much greater ambitions for their mission in Somalia. No longer willing to tolerate the existence of al-Shabab in the country, they have concluded that they must eradicate the group.  “We’ve got a major planned offensive to really sort of, I hope, terminate the al-Shabaab challenge in Somalia,” Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed this past September. In fact, the offensive has already begun. As The New York Times has disclosed in a series of recent reports, coalition forces have been steadily escalating their ongoing military operations against al-Shabab over the past year, mainly by using the same tactics that have been used against IS and its offshoots. In other words, the Obama administration is now applying its new model of exterminatory warfare to al-Shabab, demonstrating its willingness to apply its approach to other militant groups around the world. The Long-Term Outlook As the Obama administration has devised and implemented its new model of exterminatory warfare, it has also made it clear that the U.S. government is only just beginning to apply the new approach to U.S. enemies. Although the Obama administration insists that its current targets will soon be eliminated, it expects that the U.S. government will continue to wage similar kinds of warfare well into the future. For the most part, administration officials have based their predictions on their expectations for their ongoing military campaign against the Islamic State. Concerned that certain elements of IS might survive the military assault and perhaps even regroup under a new name, administration officials have said that there will continue to be a need to eliminate new threats. President Obama made the point this past August when he announced that “even as we need to crush ISIL on the battlefield, their military defeat will not be enough.” Certain “networks will probably sustain themselves even after ISIL is defeated in Raqqa and Mosul.” In other words, Obama believed that new threats will emerge and will need to be eliminated. Moving forward, “we will dismantle these networks also,” Obama promised. A few weeks later, U.S. General Joseph L. Votel made a similar point during a press briefing at the Pentagon. In the years ahead, “we will continue to deal with the next evolution of ISIL,” Votel stated. In fact, people should not get “the impression that when we finish with Mosul or Raqqa that we’re done,” he added. “We’re not. We will continue to deal with them.” More recently, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has made the same prediction. After noting in a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations that IS will probably “morph into something else or other similar extremist groups will be spawned,” Clapper argued that the U.S. government would continue working to confront the new threats. “And I believe we’re going to be in the business of suppressing these extremist movements for a long time to come,” Clapper noted. In short, officials in the Obama administration largely agree that the U.S. government has only just begun applying the administration’s new form of exterminatory warfare to militant groups around the world. Administration officials may insist that they are going to eliminate IS and other militant groups, but they also expect that their operations will spawn new groups that will need to be confronted in similar ways. The Final Factor Of course, the architects of the new exterminatory warfare have also had to deal with one additional factor that they had not initially expected: the victory of Donald Trump in the recent presidential election. Currently, it is unclear how the incoming Trump administration will proceed with the ongoing wars of eradication. Certainly, Trump has signaled that he intends to direct similar operations against U.S. enemies. During the presidential campaign, Trump pledged in a radio commercial to “quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS.” Moreover, Trump has appeared more than willing to escalate military operations. In contrast to the Obama administration, which has primarily worked to eradicate the leaders and fighters of its targets, Trump has suggested that it will be necessary to eliminate the family members as well. “You have to take out their families,” Trump insisted. Trump has since clarified his remarks, saying that he only intends to “go after” families and not kill them, but he has also made it clear that he maintains the same overall objective. When he delivered his major policy speech on terrorism this past August, Trump promised to wage major military campaigns to eradicate IS and other militant groups. “My administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS,” Trump stated. It will also “decimate Al Qaeda,” he added. Indeed, Trump has indicated that he intends to perpetuate the new form of exterminatory warfare. Although it remains unclear whether Trump will escalate the operations to include families and other civilians, he has criticized Obama for not going far enough, signaling that he intends to implement more aggressive policies. Consequently, it remains likely that the officials in the Obama administration will see their innovation applied and extended under the Trump administration, with the United States waging exterminatory warfare well into the future. The post The Final Obama Doctrine? Racking Up the Body Count appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. Edward Hunt writes about war and empire. He has a PhD in American Studies from the College of William & Mary. 21 Dec
The Crusades Are Back, With a Vengeance - Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn at a Trump rally (Photo: Gage Skidmore / Flickr) America has always had a love affair with its generals. It started at the founding of the republic with George Washington and continued with (among others) Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. These military men shared something in common: they were winning generals. Washington in the Revolution; Jackson in the War of 1812; Taylor in the Mexican-American War; Grant in the Civil War; and Ike, of course, in World War II. Americans have always loved a hero in uniform — when he wins. Yet 21st-century America is witnessing a new and revolutionary moment: the elevation of losing generals to the highest offices in the land. Retired Marine Corps General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, known as a tough-talking “warrior-monk,” will soon be the nation’s secretary of defense. He’ll be joined by a real mad dog, retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as President-elect Donald Trump’s national security adviser. Leading the Department of Homeland Security will be recently retired General John Kelly, another no-nonsense Marine. And even though he wasn’t selected, retired Army General David Petraeus was seriously considered for secretary of state, further proof of Trump’s starry-eyed fascination with the brass of our losing wars. Generals who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan to anything but victory — pyrrhic ones don’t count — are again being empowered. This time, it’s as “civilian” advisers to Trump, a business tycoon whose military knowledge begins and ends with his invocation of two World War II generals, George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur, as his all-time favorite military leaders. Let’s pause for a moment to consider those choices. Patton was a skilled commander of armored forces at the divisional and corps level, but lacked the political acumen and temperament to succeed at higher levels of command during World War II. MacArthur, notoriously vainglorious and — does this ring a bell? — completely narcissistic, was fired by President Harry Truman for insubordination during the Korean War. And yet these are the generals Trump professes to admire most. Not Omar Bradley, known as the GI’s general; not Dwight Eisenhower, the man who led the D-Day invasion in 1944; and not, most of all, George C. Marshall, a giant of a man and the architect of military victory in World War II, who did indeed make a remarkably smooth transition to civilian service both as secretary of state and defense after the war. If Truman appointed Marshall, what’s wrong, one might ask, with Trump surrounding himself with retired generals? Consider two obvious problems. First, the president already has a team of uniformed generals to advise him: the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By selecting career military men like Mattis and Flynn as his senior civilian advisers on military matters, Trump is in essence creating a rival Joint Chiefs, his own tight circle of generals trained and acculturated to think about the world as primarily a realm of conflict and to favor military solutions to geopolitical problems. Second, though it’s getting ever harder to remember in increasingly militarized America, this nation was founded on the fundamental principle of civilian control over the military, a principle that will be seriously eroded if the president’s senior civilian advisers on defense-related matters are men who self-identify as warriors and warfighters. Having taken off the uniform only a short time ago, career military men like Mattis, Flynn, and Kelly are not truly civilians. In fact, when they served, they weren’t even citizen-soldiers; quite the opposite, those in America’s post-Vietnam military self-identify as professional warriors. For Mattis and Kelly, it’s once a Marine, always a Marine (especially since each served 40-plus years in the Corps). Flynn occupies a spot all his own, since he specifically fancies himself as a warrior-crusader against Islam. These are the men who will soon occupy the highest civilian offices in America’s colossal national security state. The bottom line is this: A republic — or should I say, former republic? — founded on civilian control of the military needs true civilians as a counterweight to militarism as well as military adventurism. Recently retired generals are anything but that; they’re not even speed bumps on the road to the next set of misbegotten military “adventures.” They are likely to be only one thing: enablers of and accelerants to military action. Their presence in the highest civilian positions represents nothing short of a de facto military coup in Washington, a coup that required no violence since the president-elect simply anointed and exalted them as America’s security saviors. But here’s a question for you: If these men and their three- and four-star colleagues couldn’t win decisive military victories while in uniform, what makes Trump and the Washington establishment think they’ll do any better while wearing mufti? Of Highly Groomed (and Flawed) Generals Americans, who strongly admire their military, like to think that its most senior leaders rise on merit. This is not, however, the way the military promotion system actually works. Officers who reach the rank of general have usually been identified and sponsored at a young age, often when they are still company-grade officers in their mid-twenties. They are, in a word, groomed. Their careers are carefully “curated,” as a friend of mine (and colonel in the Air Force) reminded me recently. They’re placed on a fast track for early promotion and often given jobs in Washington at the Pentagon or as liaisons to Congress. Their sponsors and patrons, flying “top cover” for them, have found them worthy and they may indeed be talented and hard-charging. They are also judged to be “safe” — in the sense of being true believers in the professional military way of life. As my colonel friend put it, “There’s little room for innovation [in today’s military] because the next generation of GOs [general officers] has been incubating for ten years, learning all the talking points and preparing to venerate the sacred cows. It’s why when a truly innovative idea breaks through and the colonel behind it is publicly commended, there’s no answer to ‘Wow, he’s great. I wonder why he’s retiring as a colonel?’” True mavericks in the military often stall out at that rank. By disrupting the status quo, they make powerful enemies. A sterling example is Colonel John Boyd. Arguably the finest strategist the U.S. Air Force has produced in the last half-century, Boyd originated the OODA loop concept and fought hard against the brass for more maneuverable and affordable fighter jets like the F-16. Stymied within the ranks, he only gained influence after retirement as a Pentagon consultant. General officers, by the way, have come to resemble a self-replicating organism. The grooming process, favoring homogeneity as it does, is partly to blame. Disruptive creativity and a reputation for outspokenness can mark one as not being a “team player.” Political skills and conformity are valued more highly. It’s a mistake, then, to assume that America’s generals are the best and the brightest. “The curated and the calculating” is perhaps a more accurate description. With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at Trump’s chosen threesome, starting with General Mattis. He has his virtues: a distinguished career in the Marine Corps, a sensible stance against torture, a dedication to all ranks within the military. Yet like so many high-ranking military retirees — take General Mark Welsh of the Air Force, for example — Mattis quickly cashed in on his career, reputation, and continuing influence via the military-industrial complex. Despite a six-figure pension, he joined corporate boards — notably that of military-industrial powerhouse General Dynamics, where he quickly earned or acquired nearly $1.5 million in salary and stock options. Mattis is also on the board at Theranos, a deeply troubled company that failed to deliver on promises to develop effective blood-testing technologies for the military. And then, of course, there was his long military career, itself a distinctly mixed bag. As head of U.S. Central Command under President Obama, for instance, his hawkish stance toward Iran led to his removal and forced retirement in 2013. Almost a decade earlier in 2004, the aggressive tactics he oversaw in Iraq as commanding general of the 1st Marine Division during the Battle of Fallujah have been characterized by some as war crimes. For Trump, however, none of this matters. Mattis, much like General Patton (in the president-elect’s view), is a man who “plays no games.” And Mattis seems like the voice of reason and moderation compared to Flynn, whose hatred of Islam is as virulent as it is transparent. Like Trump, Flynn is a fan of tweeting, perhaps his most infamous being “Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL.” A brusque man convinced of his own rectitude, who has a reputation for not playing well with others, Flynn was forced from his position as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, after which he became a harsh critic of the Obama administration. In his brief retirement, Flynn served as a paid lobbyist to a Turkish businessman with close ties to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, while running a business consultancy that is due to profit by providing surveillance drones to patrol the U.S.-Mexican border. Rising to prominence during the Trump campaign, he led the chant against Hillary Clinton (“Lock her up!”) at the Republican National Convention in July. (His son recently helped spread the false rumor that Clinton was involved in a child sex trafficking ring involving a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.) Flynn, who sees Islam as a political conspiracy rather than a legitimate religion, is an angry warrior, a dyed-in-the-wool crusader. That Trump sees such a figure as qualified to serve as the nation’s senior civilian security adviser speaks volumes about the president-elect and the crusading militarism that is likely to be forthcoming from his administration. Serving in a supporting capacity to Flynn as chief of staff of the National Security Council (NSC) is yet another high-ranking military man (and early supporter of Trump’s presidential run), Army retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg. Almost a generation older than Flynn, Kellogg served as chief operations officer for the ill-fated Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, which badly mismanaged the U.S. military’s occupation of the country after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. Like most retired generals, Kellogg has profited from close links to defense-related industries, including CACI International, Oracle Corporation (Homeland Security Division), and Cubic, where he was senior vice president for ground combat programs. It’s hard to see fresh ideas coming from the NSC with long-serving military diehards like Flynn and Kellogg ruling the roost. General John Kelly, the last of the quartet and soon to be head of the Department of Homeland Security, is yet another long-serving Marine with a reputation for bluntness. He opposed efforts by the Obama administration to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, claiming that the remaining detainees were “all bad boys,” both guilty and dangerous. He also ran afoul of the administration by criticizing efforts to open combat positions to qualified servicewomen, claiming such efforts were “agenda-driven” and would lead to lower standards and decreased military combat effectiveness. Despite these views, or perhaps because of them, Kelly, who served as senior military assistant to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and has been well vetted by the system, is likely to be confirmed with little real debate. Of Coups and Crusades Collectively, the team of Mattis, Flynn, and Kelly could not be more symbolic of the ongoing process of subversion of civilian control of the military. With Trump holding their reins, these self-styled warriors will soon take charge of the highest civilian positions overseeing the military of the world’s sole superpower. Don’t think of this, however, as a “Seven Days in May” scenario, in which a hard-headed general mounts a coup against an allegedly soft-hearted president. It’s far worse. Who needs a coup when generals are essentially to be given free rein by a president-elect who fancies himself a military expert because, as a teenager, he spent a few years at a military-themed boarding school? In all of this, Trump represents just the next (giant) step in an ongoing process. His warrior-steeds, his “dream team” of generals, highlight America’s striking twenty-first-century embrace of militarism. At the same time, the future of U.S. foreign policy seems increasingly clear: more violent interventionism against what these men see as the existential threat of radical Islam. In the process, one radical idea will be pitted against another: American exceptionalism, armed to the teeth and empowered by war-lovers (some deeply involved in an evangelizing Christianity) against Islamic jihadist extremism. Rather than a “clash of civilizations,” it’s a clash of warring creeds, of what should essentially be seen as fundamentalist cults. Both embrace their own exceptionalism, both see themselves as righteous warriors, both represent ways of thinking steeped in patriarchy and saturated with violence, and both are remarkably resistant to any thought of compromise. Put another way, under Trump’s team of “civilian” warrior-generals, it looks like the crusades may be back — with a vengeance. Yet for all the president-elect’s tough talk about winning, count on the next four years, like the last 15, being filled to the brim with military frustrations rather than victory. And fear a second possibility as well. Whatever else they do, Trump and his generals are likely to produce one historically stunning result: the withering away of what’s left of the American democratic experiment. The post The Crusades Are Back, With a Vengeance appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. William J. Astore, a TomDispatch regular, is a historian and retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). His personal blog is Bracing Views.  21 Dec
Conn Hallinan’s 2016 ‘Are You Serious?’ Awards - (Photo: Bart Everson / Flickr) Each year Conn Hallinan gives awards to individuals, companies, and governments that make reading the news a daily adventure. Here are the awards for 2016. The Golden Lemon Award had a number of strong contenders in 2016, including: General Atomics for its MQ-9 Reaper armed drone, which has a faulty starter-generator that routinely shorts out the aircraft. So far, no one can figure out why. Some 20 were either destroyed or sustained major damage last year. The Reapers costs $64 million apiece. Panavia Aircraft Company’s $25 billion Tornado fighter-bomber that can’t fly at night because the cockpit lights blind the pilot. A runner up here is the German arms company Heckler & Koch, whose G-36 assault rifle can’t shoot straight when the weather is hot. The British company BAE’s $1.26 billion Type 45 destroyer that breaks down “whenever we try to do too much with them,” a Royal Navy officer told the Financial Times. Engaging in combat, he said, would be “catastrophic.” But the hands down winner is Lockheed Martin, builder of the F-35 Lightning stealth fighter. At a cost of $1.5 trillion, it’s the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history. Aside from numerous software problems, pilots who try to bail out risk decapitation. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation recently released an assessment of the F-35’s performance that states, “In an opposed combat scenario,” the “aircraft would need to avoid threat engagement and would require augmentation by other friendly forces.” Translation: “If the bad guys show up, run for your life and pray your buddies arrive to bail you out of trouble.” Lockheed Martin also gets an Honorable Mention for its $4.4 billion littoral combat ship, the USS Zumwalt, which had to be towed out of the Panama Canal. The ship also leaks, as do other sister littoral combat ships, including the USS Freedom. Note: U.S. students are currently $1.3 trillion in debt. The Dr. Frankenstein Award to the U.S. Air Force for zapping the brains of drone operators with electricity in order to improve their focus. The electrical stimulation was started after scientists discovered that feeding the pilots Provigil and Ritalin was a bad idea, because both drugs are highly addictive and Provigil can permanently damage sleep patterns. Nika Knight of Common Dreams reports that “European researchers who studied the brain-zapping technique years ago warned that the technology is, in fact, extremely invasive, as its effects tend to ‘spread from the target brain area to neighboring areas.’” The Golden Jackal Award goes to United Kingdom oil companies BP and Royal Dutch Shell for their lobbying campaign following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Executives of the companies met with UK Trade Minister Baroness Elizabeth Symons five months before the U.S. attack to complain that the Americans were cutting them out of the post-war loot. According to Parliament’s 2016 Chilcot Report on the Iraq War, Symons then met with Prime Minister Tony Blair’s foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to tell him it was a “matter of urgency,” and that “British interests are being left to one side.” Straw dutifully told Blair to raise the issue “very forcefully” with President George W. Bush, because U.S. companies are “ruthless” and “will not help UK companies unless you play hardball with Bush.” Runner up in this category is the Washington Post, which won a Pulitzer Prize in Public Service journalism for publishing Edward Snowden’s revelations about illegal U.S. wiretapping and then called for the whistleblower himself to be charged with espionage. Glenn Greenwald — who met with Snowden and wrote stories about the scandal for The Guardian — summed it up: “The Washington Post has achieved an ignominious feat in US media history: the first-ever paper to explicitly editorialize for the criminal prosecution of its own source…. That is warped beyond anything that can be described.” The Thin Skin Award is a five-way tie among the governments of Spain, India, Israel, Turkey, and Thailand: Spain: Under Spain’s 2015 public security law — nicknamed the “gag rule” — police are trying to fine a woman for carrying a bag on which was written “All Cats Are Beautiful.” The police say that the writing and color of the bag is “traditionally associated with insults to the police” and that the four capital letters really mean “All Cops Are Bastards.” India: The right-wing government of Narendra Modi is proposing a law that would make it illegal to publish any map indicating that Kashmir is disputed territory divided between India and Pakistan. Currently such maps are censored by either preventing the publication’s distribution or covering the maps with black stickers. The new law would fine violators $15 million and jail them for up to seven years. Israel: The Ministry of Education has removed a novel — “Borderlife” by Dorit Rabinyan, about a romance between a Jewish woman and a Palestinian man — from the list of required reading for Hebrew high schools literature classes. Education official Dalia Fenig says, “Marrying a non-Jew is not what the education system is educating about.” Turkey: In the aftermath of July’s failed coup, novelist and journalist Ahmet Alten, and his brother Mehmet, a professor of economics, were arrested for “colluding with the military” even though both men are known to be sharp critics of the Turkish armed forces. The prosecutor had no evidence against the men, but charged them with giving “subliminal” and “subconscious” messages backing the coup during a TV talk show. The authorities also closed down the Smurfs, Maya the Bee, and SpongeBob SquarePants, because the cartoon characters were speaking Kurdish on Zarok TV, a station that does programming in the Kurdish language. According to Al-Monitor, “Many social media users went into lampoon mode, asking, “Who is the separatist: SpongeBob or Papa Smurf?” Thailand: Patnaree Chankij, a 40-year old maid, is to be tried by a military court for breaking the country’s lèse-majesté’ law that makes it a crime to insult the royal family or their pets. She replied “ja” (“yeah”) to a private post sent to her on Facebook. She did not agree with the post, comment on it, or make it public. One man is currently serving a 30-year sentence for posting material critical of the Thai royal family. Following the military coup two years ago, the authorities have filed 57 such cases, 44 of them for online commentary. One person was arrested for insulting the king’s dog. The Cultural Sensitivity Award goes to Denmark, France, and Latvia. The center-right Danish government, which relies on the racist Danish People’s Party to stay in government, passed a law this year that confiscates valuables, including jewels and cash, from refugees. Immigrants can only keep up to $1,455. The Danish town of Randers also required pork to be used in all public day care centers and kindergartens in a measure the Socialist People’s Party (SPP) charges is aimed at Muslims. “What do children need? Do they need pork? Actually not,” said Charlotte Molbaek, a Randers Town Council member from the SPP. “Children need grownups.” Several French towns run by rightwing mayors have removed alternatives — like fish or chicken — from school menus when pork is served. On those days Muslim and Jewish children eat vegetables. The right-wing government of Latvia is banning the wearing of full veils, in spite of that fact that, at last count, there were three such women in the whole country. Former Latvian president Vaira Vike-Freiberga told the New York Times, “Anybody could be under a veil or under a burqa. You could carry a rocket launcher under your veil.” A runner up in this category is former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who, during a speech in Kiev, said that Ukrainians should stop complaining about the economic crisis that has gripped the country since the 2014 coup that overthrew President Viktor Yanukovych. “Anyone who believes that life is bad in Ukraine should go to Liberia, where the standard of living is much lower, and then you will be thankful.” The Head In The Sand Award to British Prime Minister Theresa May for closing down the government’s program to study climate change. A co-winner is the conservative government of Australia, which laid off 275 scientists from its climate change program. Some were rehired after an international petition campaign, but the leading international researcher on sea levels — John Church — was let go permanently. In the meantime, the U.S. Air Force is spending $1 billion to build a radar installation in Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The atoll lies halfway between Australia and Hawaii and is only a few feet above sea level. It is estimated that sea levels will rise at least six feet by 2100, but the increase is moving far faster than scientists predicted. “The future does not look very good for those islands,” says Curt Storlazzi, an oceanographer with the U.S. Geological Service. The Little Bo Peep Award goes to the U.S. Defense Department for being unable to account for $6.5 trillion in spending. Yes, that is a “T.” According to Mandy Smithberger, director of Straus Military Reform Project at the Project On Government Oversight, “Accounting at the Department of Defense is a disaster, but nobody is screaming about it because you have a lot of people in Congress who believe in more military spending.” According to UK watchdog group Action on Armed Violence, the Pentagon also can’t account for 1.4 million guns it shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA won some laurels in this category as well. According to an investigation by Al Jazeera and the New York Times, Jordanian intelligence operatives stole millions of dollars in U.S. weapons bound for Syria. Some of the guns were used to kill Americans at a police training school in Amman. The Annie Oakley Award goes to American firearms manufacturers and the National Rife Association (NRA) for their campaign to arm kids. The guns for tots are lighter than regular firearms and have less recoil. They are also made in “kid-friendly” colors, like pink. Iowa recently passed legislation making it legal for any minor to own a pistol. According to State Representative Kirsten Running, the law “allows for one-year olds, two-year olds, three-year olds, four-year olds to operate handguns,” adding, “We do not need a militia of toddlers.” The Violence Policy Center reports, “As household gun ownership has steadily declined and the primary gun market of white males continues to age, the firearms industry has set its sights on America’s children. Much like the tobacco industry’s search for replacement smokers, the gun industry is seeking replacement shooters.” If your two-year old is packing and really wants that Star Wars droid, I recommend you buy it. The post Conn Hallinan’s 2016 ‘Are You Serious?’ Awards appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com.  21 Dec
The Pentagon’s $125-Billion Cover-up - (Photo: Wikipedia) Let’s say you ask somebody a question. They give you an answer you don’t like, so you pretend you didn’t hear it. Probably all of us would cop to something like this at some time in our imperfect pasts. For most of us though, that pretending hasn’t included trying to hide $125 billion. The Pentagon has a little image problem: Google “Pentagon waste” and you get more than 500,000 hits, including stories about $600 toilet seats and $7,600 coffee makers. The finances of the largest agency in the federal government are so screwed up, it’s the only one that still can’t pass an audit. So a couple of years ago the Pentagon paid some consultants to find ways to cut down on this waste. If some good ideas came out of this, Pentagon officials figured, they could show how concerned with efficiency they were and apply the savings to their wish lists of pet military projects. It didn’t turn out quite that way. In three months the Pentagon brass had on their desks a report outlining $125 billion in proposed cuts — nearly a quarter of the total budget — mostly to the workforce that manages things like accounting, human resources, and property management for this enormous operation. This workforce has ballooned in the last decade, even as the ranks of soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women have shrunk. The report didn’t even get to the real waste in the Pentagon budget, like the $1 trillion it’s planning to spend to replace our entire nuclear arsenal, or the $1.4 trillion it’s shelling out on the F-35, a plane that after 19 years in development still can’t reliably beat the models we already have. But it still made the Pentagon leadership nervous. They’re in the midst of pleading poverty. They go around talking about a “gutted” military, even as that military sits on more money than the Reagan administration ever gave it. OMG, they thought: What if this blueprint for cutting waste resulted in actual cuts to their budget? What if, instead of being plowed back into other military projects, that $125 billion were freed up for roads or schools or green energy, or applied to the deficit? They couldn’t let that happen. So they pretended not to hear this news and buried the report. It blew up on them when a recent Washington Post story exposed this act of suppression. Now it’s generating exactly the sort of media attention they were trying to avoid. Members of Congress have vowed to get to the bottom of this cover-up of billions in wasted taxpayer money. “If this is true, the Pentagon played Congress and the American public for fools,” Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill said. In a way, this $125 billion is funding a big federal jobs program — more than a million people doing jobs that a fraction of them could handle just fine. But this is the kind of make-work program conservatives have been complaining about for years. Why not use the savings outlined in the report — and billions more, by saying no to budget-busting weapon systems we don’t need — and put people to work doing things our country actually needs? Like educating our children, making the transition to clean energy, and building the transit systems we need to boost the economy and avoid the worst effects of climate change. The country is in a no-more-business-as-usual mood right now. Let’s make sure that applies to the Pentagon. The post The Pentagon’s $125-Billion Cover-up appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. Miriam Pemberton directs the Peace Economy Transitions project at the Institute for Policy Studies. 14 Dec
From Here to Dystopia - From the “Splinterlands” cover. Shortly after the November elections, a friend sent me a photo via Facebook. It was a sandwich board outside a bookstore in Massachusetts. It read: “Post-apocalyptic fiction has been moved to our current affairs section.” My friend added a note of her own: “Trump’s election should help with sales of your new book.” My gain, humanity’s loss. My new book is a dystopian novel about how the world falls apart. Splinterlands, published this month by Haymarket and available here, was not intended to be a depiction of current events. I didn’t think that Britain would vote to leave the European Union last June. Nor did I think Donald Trump would win the November elections. But when I was writing the manuscript a year ago, I was certainly worried about the trend lines. After all, the EU has sustained a number of heavy body blows over the last several years. These challenges have ranged from the Greek economic crisis and the assault of Euroskeptical governments in Eastern Europe to the greater popularity of right-wing populists in Western Europe and the rising xenophobia that has accompanied the large influx of immigrants from conflict zones in the Middle East. In the United States, meanwhile, Donald Trump was articulating the profound unease that many Americans have felt about economic globalization, political elites, and liberal culture. I didn’t think he’d win in 2016 (and, according to the popular vote, he didn’t). But I was worried that a more capable politician would run on Trump’s platform and eke out a victory in 2020. So, Splinterlands was supposed to be a warning. Britons were supposed to handily defeat Brexit; Hillary was supposed to easily win the Electoral College. Don’t be complacent, I was warning my future readers: The EU could still fragment, and the United States could still elect a neo-fascist. I’d issued a similar warning in August 2008 about a “Goldilocks apocalypse” happening as a result of the aggressively centrist policies of Barack Obama. Now, with millions of Americans concerned about a Trumpocalypse, complacency is no longer my chief concern. Sometimes, the future rushes at you like an oncoming car that suddenly crosses over the centerline of the highway. Jerked out of a near-snooze, you try to swerve. But the future hits you head on. In the wee hours of the morning of November 10, what’s the last thought in your head before you sink into unconsciousness? I sure hope the air bag works. The Bomb Squad There is nothing more frightening than a bomb squad that’s trained not to defuse munitions, but rather to blow up the very institutions they’re supposed to protect. Donald Trump is assembling quite a team of these auto-demolition experts. There’s the EPA administrator who places his faith in fossil fuels and can’t wait to gut environmental regulations, the secretary of labor who wants to replace workers with robots, the head of the education department who would dearly love to privatize and Christianize the public education system. Then there’s Rick Perry, who once promised to eliminate the very Energy Department that Trump wants him to lead. Who knows what Ben Carson will do with housing or Linda McMahon at the Small Business Association. They’re eminently unqualified. Trump, the putative anti-elitist, would have done the world a favor by selecting nominees at random from the phone book. Equally great damage will be done in the realm of foreign policy. Consider John Bolton, who is up for the position of deputy secretary of state. It’s bad enough that the choice for secretary of state is a top oil executive who knows nothing about diplomacy and is looking forward to negotiating with Vladimir Putin, oligarch to oligarch. Incomparably worse is a nominee who knows the inner workings of international relations and wants nothing better than to blow them up. Expect Exxon exec Rex Tillerson to travel around the world and conclude deals that enrich his buddies. John Bolton, meanwhile, will be busy destroying everything in sight. Margaret Thatcher once said that she didn’t believe in “society.” Bolton, similarly, doesn’t believe in the international community. He famously asserted that the UN complex in New York would be better off if it lost ten floors. Bolton unapologetically endorsed the Iraq War, supported a military strike against Iran, and has savaged the détente with Cuba. He wants to go head-to-head with China. He’s a big fan of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. He welcomed the Brexit vote as an escape from “the EU Titanic.” He can’t wait to take the gloves off to fight a civilizational battle against “radical Islam.” How could the realm of international relations produce such a violent, abrasive bomb-thrower like John Bolton? You might as well ask why the human body produces potentially fatal cancer cells. In my novel Splinterlands — and you can read an excerpt here at Alternet — I write about a future in which the international community has disappeared, the EU has fallen apart, and large nation-states like Russia, China, and the United States have fractured. Even organic farming communes have to maintain well-stocked arsenals to protect themselves from the war of all against all taking place outside their walls. The rich have seceded from society; the poor are at the mercy of the elements; and the middle class has been whittled down to a mere sliver. Without any international cooperation to speak of, the planet can’t address the common ills of climate change, global pandemics, and economic inequality. It doesn’t take much to unravel the international community. One or two bomb throwers can do the trick. Donald Trump is appointing a whole cabinet of them. From Here to Dystopia In that old TV ad, Madge the manicurist tells her customer to use Palmolive to wash dishes because it will soften her hands. The customer expresses doubt. “But you’re already soaking in it,” Madge points out, and the camera zooms in on the customer’s hand resting in the green liquid. Dystopias are almost always set in the future. Readers might identify certain unpleasant aspects of contemporary life exaggerated for effect by the science fiction writer. Women have no control over their bodies in The Handmaid’s Tale. Everyone is stupefied by drugs in Brave New World. Water has become the most precious natural resource in The Water Knife. But sometimes, as we dip into the latest dystopian fiction, we discover that, oops, we’re already soaking in it. George Orwell was famously undecided about the title of his most notorious dystopian fiction. He was certainly thinking of the date he finished the book, 1948, when he settled on its anagram, 1984. That fictional year almost immediately became synonymous with a future of unrelenting despair. In reality, as the Iron Curtain clanked shut in the middle of Europe, 1948 was already pretty dystopian. War between Oceania and the other two super-states was just around the corner, and Newspeak had already taken over the public sphere. Orwell intended his novel as a cautionary tale. Unless the Britons of 1948 made wiser political decisions, they would one day wake up in Airstrip One with Big Brother staring at them from posters on every street corner. They had to be careful not to take the wrong turn off history’s highway. In Splinterlands, the main character is obsessed with this very question of when the world took its fatal detour. For decades, scholars have put the onus on large impersonal events — Hurricane Donald, the Great Panic of 2023, the displacement of the dollar — as if a policy nudge or two one way or another might have prevented these developments. I’ve always focused instead on 2018. As far as I can tell, that was the last moment when we had a definite shot at dodging the bullet. The problem is: It wasn’t a single bullet and there wasn’t a single gun. If several EU countries hadn’t set up internal borders against refugees, migrant workers, and perceived terrorists, if the United States hadn’t made one last effort to preserve its global military “footprint,” if the world community hadn’t paid mere lip service to its previous commitments to curb carbon emissions, the story might have turned out differently. Looking backward, history always seems inevitable. However, since we face forward into the unknown, we can always change our story. Even when the headwind is strong and the ground slopes up, we can alter our trajectory. Even when we look into the distance and Trump is as ubiquitous as a reality-show Big Brother, we can stubbornly refuse to accept this manufactured reality. Dystopias are not always safely in the future. We may discover with a start that we are soaking in it. But we are not just passive readers. We are also active writers. And with a lot of grit and old-fashioned organizing, from bookstores to barricades, we can write ourselves a different story. The post From Here to Dystopia appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. 14 Dec
Foreign Meddling in Our Vote? Remember How This Feels. - Trump and Putin (Image: DonkeyHotey / Flickr) Even in an election year as shot through with conspiracy theories as this one, it would have been hard to imagine a bigger bombshell than Russia intervening to help Donald Trump. But that’s exactly what the CIA believes happened, or so unnamed “officials brief on the matter” told the Washington Post. While Russia had long been blamed for hacking email accounts linked to the Clinton campaign, its motives had been shrouded in mystery. According to the Post, though, CIA officials recently presented Congress with a “a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources” that “electing Trump was Russia’s goal.” Now, the CIA hasn’t made any of its evidence public, and the CIA and FBI are reportedly divided on the subject. Though it’s too soon to draw conclusions, the charges warrant a serious public investigation. Even some Republicans who backed Trump seem to agree. “The Russians are not our friends,” said Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, announcing his support for a congressional probe. It’s “warfare,” added Senator John McCain. There’s a grim irony to this. The CIA is accusing Russia of interfering in our free and fair elections to install a right-wing candidate it deemed more favorable to its interests. Yet during the Cold War, that’s exactly what the CIA did to the rest of the world. Most Americans probably don’t know that history. But in much of the world it’s a crucial part of how Washington is viewed even today. In the post-World War II years, as Moscow and Washington jockeyed for global influence, the two capitals tried to game every foreign election they could get their hands on. From Europe to Vietnam and Chile to the Philippines, American agents delivered briefcases of cash to hand-picked politicians, launched smear campaigns against their left-leaning rivals, and spread hysterical “fake news” stories like the ones some now accuse Russia of spreading here. Together, political scientist Dov Levin estimates, Russia and the U.S. interfered in 117 elections this way in the second half the 20th century. Even worse is what happened when the CIA’s chosen candidates lost. In Iran, when elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh tried to nationalize the country’s BP-held oil reserves, CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt led an operation to oust Mossadegh in favor of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The shah’s secret police tortured dissidents by the thousands, leading directly to the Islamic Revolution in 1979. In Guatemala, when the democratically elected Jacobo Arbez tried to loosen the U.S.-based United Fruit company’s grip on Guatemalan land, the CIA backed a coup against him. In the decades of civil war that followed, U.S.-backed security forces were accused of carrying out a genocide against indigenous Guatemalans. In Chile, after voters elected the socialist Salvador Allende, the CIA spearheaded a bloody coup to install the right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, who went on to torture and disappear tens of thousands of Chileans. “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people,” U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger purportedly quipped. And those are only the most well-known examples. I don’t raise any of this history to excuse Russia’s alleged meddling in our election — which, if true, is outrageous. Only to suggest that now, maybe, we know how it feels. We should remember that feeling as Trump, who’s spoken fondly of authoritarian rulers from Russia to Egypt to the Philippines and beyond, comes into office. Meanwhile, much of the world must be relieved to see the CIA take a break from subverting democracy abroad to protect it at home. The post Foreign Meddling in Our Vote? Remember How This Feels. appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. 14 Dec
Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un: Soul Brothers? - They both have a reputation for unpredictability. They both like to surround themselves with generals. They both enjoy tweaking China even though their countries are economically dependent on Bejing. Coming into office, Donald Trump has a lot more in common with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un than he would care to admit. They’re too different in age and ethnic background to be doppelgangers. They’re more like soul brothers. Like the North Korean leader, the president-elect is a wealthy insider who has zero experience in politics and a certain preference for the autocratic. Both men have a taste for the finer things in life and a weakness for big, flashy construction projects. They are also both quick to anger and big on revenge. It’s no surprise, then, that so many people around the world are as uncomfortable with Trump’s proximity to nuclear weapons as they are with Kim Jong Un’s. During his election campaign, Donald Trump mentioned that he’d be willing to sit down and make a deal with the North Korean leader. This offhand offer led some progressive Koreans to favor Trump over Hillary Clinton, who promised more of the same Obama policy toward North Korea with perhaps a few more punishing sanctions thrown in for good effect. After the election, some Korea watchers made a more elaborate case for Trump to negotiate with Pyongyang. Joel Wit and Richard Sokolsky argue that Obama’s policy of strategic patience yielded worse than nothing over eight years of sanctions and studied indifference. Trump, as an outsider, can quickly change the dynamic. “It will take the kind of strong leadership and negotiating prowess that Trump boasted about incessantly during the presidential campaign—and an inclination, which he’s quite clearly demonstrated, to buck the criticism of the foreign-policy establishment,” they write in The Atlantic. As a supporter of diplomatic engagement with North Korea, I would very much like to see the resumption of negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang. I don’t much care who takes credit in Washington for the initiative. After all, I was happy that the George W. Bush team reversed its hostile stance in favor of the Six Party Talks during his second term, even though I disagreed with virtually everything else about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy at the time. But I don’t think that Donald Trump has any intention of negotiating a deal with North Korea. After all, he wouldn’t just be bucking the criticism of the foreign policy establishment. He’d be going against the inclinations of his own foreign policy team. His nominee for national security advisor, Michael Flynn, believes that North Korea – along with China, Russia, Cuba, and Nicaragua – is aligned with radical Islam. The Bush administration’s inclusion of North Korea in an “axis of evil” with Iraq and Iran set back diplomatic efforts with Pyongyang for several years. Flynn’s expansion of this axis will not help matters either. Mike Pompeo, Trump’s nominee to head up the CIA, has an even more hawkish view of North Korea. He put out a statement after North Korea’s January 2016 nuclear test that read in part: North Korea presents a frightening vision of a future with President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran.  Despite the obvious failure of President Clinton’s 1994 nuclear deal with North Korea, the Obama administration sent Wendy Sherman, the same person who handled the failed North Korea deal, to negotiate with Iran and allowed her to use a similar template.  As a consequence, the world could face not one, but two radical nuclear-armed regimes that terrorize other countries and abuse their own citizens.  KT McFarland, who is Trump’s pick for deputy national security advisor, also has recommended tightening sanctions against North Korea to shut down all financial transfers. Additionally, she suggested that the U.S. government push a program of “missile defense on steroids.” Trump and his team have also trotted out the old standby: pressure China to pressure North Korea. This has been a go-to strategy for every administration going back at least to Bill Clinton. And it’s true that China has become increasingly frustrated with North Korea’s actions. But even if Beijing were willing to carry Washington’s water on this issue – and that’s a big if – it just doesn’t have the kind of leverage over Pyongyang that U.S. national security professionals imagine that it has. As importantly, no one in Trump’s transition team has explained how it will play this China card when it is angering Beijing on a number of issues including trade, Taiwan, and missile defense. As the Trump team continues to chart its path to the White House, there is much talk these days in Washington that North Korea will mark the new administration’s first challenge. In his conversation with Trump, President Obama reportedly singled out North Korea’s nuclear program as a priority. Perhaps Kim Jong Un will test the new president’s mettle with another missile or nuclear test. Perhaps it will somehow take advantage of the political turmoil in South Korea. I would dearly love to see the United States abandon its failed policy of punish-and-ignore North Korea. I hope that negotiations are in the offing. But when two hotheads like Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump square off, diplomacy will probably be the last thing on their minds. The post Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un: Soul Brothers? appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. His latest book is the dystopian novel, Splinterlands. 12 Dec
A Global Nuclear Winter: Avoiding the Unthinkable in India and Pakistan - Indian and Pakistani border guards shake hands at a village border crossing. (Photo: Koshy Koshy / Flickr) President-elect Donald Trump’s off the cuff, chaotic approach to foreign policy had at least one thing going for it, even though it was more the feel of a blind pig rooting for acorns than a thought-out international initiative. In speaking with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the New York Times reported, Trump said he wanted “to address and find solutions” to Pakistan’s problems. And what big problems they are. Whether Trump understands exactly how dangerous the current tensions between Pakistan and India are, or if anything will come from the November 30 exchange between the two leaders, is anyone’s guess. But it’s more than the Obama administration has done over the past eight years, in spite of the outgoing president’s 2008 election promise to address the on-going crisis in Kashmir. Right now that troubled land is the single most dangerous spot on the globe. War, Famine, and Radiation India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the disputed province in the past six decades and came within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear exchange in 1999. Both countries are on a crash program to produce nuclear weapons, and between them they have enough explosive power to not only kill more than 20 million of their own people, but also to devastate the world’s ozone layer and throw the Northern Hemisphere into a nuclear winter — with a catastrophic impact on agriculture worldwide. According to studies done at Rutgers, the University of Colorado-Boulder, and the University of California-Los Angeles, if both countries detonated 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, it would generate between 1 and 5 million tons of smoke. Within 10 days, that would drive temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere down to levels too cold for wheat production in much of Canada and Russia. The resulting 10 percent drop in rainfall — especially in Asian locales that rely monsoons — would exhaust worldwide food supplies, leading to the starvation of up to 100 million or more people. Aside from the food crisis, a nuclear war in South Asia would destroy between 25 to 70 percent of the Northern Hemisphere’s ozone layer, resulting in a massive increase in dangerous ultraviolent radiation. Cold Start, Hot War Lest anyone think that the chances of such a war are slight, consider two recent developments. One, a decision by Pakistan to deploy low-yield tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons and to give permission for local commanders to decide when to use them. In an interview with the German newspaper Deutsche Welle, Gregory Koblentz of the Council on Foreign Relations warned that if a “commander of a forward-deployed nuclear armed unit finds himself in a ‘use it or lose it’ situation and about to be overrun, he might decided to launch his weapons.” Pakistan’s current defense minister, Muhammad Asif, told Geo TV, “If anyone steps on our soil and if anyone’s designs are a threat to our security, we will not hesitate to use those [nuclear] weapons for our defense.” Every few years the Pentagon “war games” a clash between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. Every game ends in a nuclear war. The second dangerous development is the “Cold Start” strategy by India that would send Indian troops across the border to a depth of 30 kilometers in the advent of a terrorist attack like the 1999 Kargill incident in Kashmir, the 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, or the 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed 166 people. Since the Indian army is more than twice the size of Pakistan’s, there would be little that Pakistanis could do to stop such an invasion other than using battlefield nukes. India would then be faced with either accepting defeat or responding. India doesn’t currently have any tactical nukes, only high yield strategic weapons — many aimed at China — whose primary value is to destroy cities. Hence a decision by a Pakistani commander to use a tactical warhead would almost surely lead to a strategic response by India, setting off a full-scale nuclear exchange and the nightmare that would follow in its wake. A Regional Arms Race With so much at stake, why is no one but a Twitter-addicted foreign policy apprentice saying anything? What happened to President Obama’s follow through to his 2008 statement that the tensions over Kashmir “won’t be easy” to solve, but that doing so “is important”? A strategy of pulling India into an alliance against China was dreamed up during the administration of George W. Bush, but it was Obama’s “Asia Pivot” that signed and sealed the deal. With it went a quid pro quo: If India would abandon its traditional neutrality, the Americans would turn a blind eye to Kashmir. As a sweetener, the U.S. agreed to bypass the global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow India to buy uranium on the world market, something New Delhi had been banned from doing since it detonated a nuclear bomb in 1974 using fuel it had cribbed from U.S.-supplied nuclear reactors. In any case, because neither India nor Pakistan is a party to the treaty, both should be barred from buying uranium. In India’s case, the U.S. has waived that restriction. The so-called 1-2-3 Agreement requires India to use any nuclear fuel it purchases in its civilian reactors, but frees it up to use its meager domestic supplies on its nuclear weapons program. India has since built two enormous nuclear production sites at Challakere and near Mysore, where, rumor has it, it is producing a hydrogen bomb. Both sites are off limits to international inspectors. In 2008, when the Obama administration indicated it was interested in pursuing the 1-2-3 Agreement, then Pakistani Foreign minister Khurshid Kusuni warned that the deal would undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty and lead to a nuclear arms race in Asia. That is exactly what has come to pass. The only countries currently adding to their nuclear arsenals are Pakistan, India, China, and North Korea. While Pakistan is still frozen out of buying uranium on the world market, it has sufficient domestic supplies to fuel an accelerated program to raise its warhead production. Pakistan is estimated to have between 110 and 130 warheads already, and it’s projected to have developed 200 by 2020, surpassing the United Kingdom. India has between 110 and 120 nuclear weapons. Both countries have short, medium, and long-range missiles, submarine ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles, plus nuclear-capable aircraft that can target each other’s major urban areas. A New Uprising in Kashmir One problem in the current crisis is that both countries are essentially talking past one another. Pakistan does have legitimate security concerns. It has fought and lost three wars with India over Kashmir since 1947, and it’s deeply paranoid about the size of the Indian army. But India has been the victim of several major terrorist attacks that have Pakistan’s fingerprints all over them. The 1999 Kargill invasion lasted a month and killed hundreds of soldiers on both sides. Reportedly the Pakistanis were considering arming their missiles with nuclear warheads until the Clinton administration convinced them to stand down. Pakistan’s military has long denied that it has any control over terrorist organizations based in Pakistan, but virtually all intelligence agencies agree that, with the exception of the country’s home-grown Taliban, that is not the case. The Pakistani army certainly knew about a recent attack on an Indian army base in Kashmir that killed 19 soldiers. In the past, India responded to such attacks with quiet counterattacks of its own, but this time around the right-wing nationalist government of Narendra Modi announced that the Indian military had crossed the border and killed more than 30 militants. It was the first time that India publicly acknowledged a cross-border assault. Meanwhile the Indian press has whipped up a nationalist fervor that has seen sports events between the two countries cancelled and a ban on using Pakistani actors in Indian films. The Pakistani press has been no less jingoistic. In the meantime, the situation in Kashmir has gone from bad to worse. Early in the summer Indian security forces killed Burhan Wani, a popular leader of the Kashmir independence movement. Since then the province has essentially been paralyzed, with schools closed and massive demonstrations. Thousands of residents have been arrested, close to 100 killed, and hundreds of demonstrators wounded and blinded by the widespread use of birdshot by Indian security forces. Indian rule in Kashmir has been singularly brutal. Between 50,000 and 80,000 people have died over the past six decades, and thousands of others have been “disappeared” by security forces. While in the past the Pakistani army aided the infiltration of terrorist groups to attack the Indian army, this time around the uprising is homegrown. Kashmiris are simply tired of military rule and a law which gives Indian security forces essentially carte blanche to terrorize the population. Called the Special Powers Act — modeled after a British provision to suppress of Catholics in Northern Ireland and mirroring practices widely used by the Israelis in the Occupied Territories — the law allows Indian authorities to arrest and imprison people without charge and gives immunity to Indian security forces. Avenues to Peace As complex as the situation in Kashmir is, there are avenues to resolve it. A good start would be to suspend the Special Powers Act and send the Indian Army back to the barracks. The crisis in Kashmir began when the Hindu ruler of the mostly Muslim region opted to join India when the countries were divided in 1947. At the time, the residents were promised that a UN-sponsored referendum would allow residents to choose India, Pakistan, or independence. That referendum has never been held. Certainly the current situation cannot continue. Kashmir has almost 12 million people, and no army or security force — even one as large as India’s — can maintain a permanent occupation if the residents don’t want it. Instead of resorting to force, India should ratchet down its security forces and negotiate with Kashmiris for an interim increase in local autonomy. But in the long run, the Kashmiris should have their referendum — and both India and Pakistan will have to accept the results. What the world cannot afford is for the current tensions to spiral down into a military confrontation that could easily get out of hand. The U.S., through its aid to Pakistan — $860 million this year — has some leverage, but it cannot play a role if its ultimate goal is an alliance to contain China, a close ally of Pakistan. Neither country would survive a nuclear war, and neither country should be spending its money on an arms race. Almost 30 percent of Indians live below the poverty line, as do 22 percent of Pakistanis. The $51 billion Indian defense budget and the $7 billion Pakistan spends could be put to far better use. The post A Global Nuclear Winter: Avoiding the Unthinkable in India and Pakistan appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedge.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com. 8 Dec
Can Europe Resist the Trump Tide? - Norbert Hofer (Photo: Apex Archive / Flickr) Norbert Hofer is a nasty piece of work. On the surface, he seems like a bland, soft-spoken, conventionally handsome Central European engineer-turned-politician who emphasizes the conventional conservative values of family and nation. But during the recent prolonged Austrian presidential election — first round in May, second round last Sunday — the candidate of the Freedom Party was in fact a walking, talking dog whistle. Behind the smiling façade, Hofer is a gun-toting, anti-immigrant, far-right-wing nationalist who once declared that “Islam has no place in Austria.” He dresses up his racism in the language of “identity” (beware white people who talk about identity — they really mean supremacy). He likes to wear a blue cornflower in his lapel, which he points out, quite correctly, is the color of his Freedom Party. It also happens to be the flower that secret Nazis used to wear to signal their beliefs to confederates. No surprise that the first leader of the Freedom Party back in the 1950s was a former Nazi and member of the SS. Of course, this is not the Freedom Party of the Cold War era. Hofer has steered it in a pro-Israel, pro-Russia direction. After all, Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin are the new one-two punch of a right-wing Judeo-Christian tradition that targets its third monotheistic cousin. In this way, Hofer is following the script of Donald Trump, who counts on the support of these two democratically elected autocrats in his multi-front assault on Muslims. In the end, neither his soft-pedaled Nazism nor his hard-core illiberalism helped put Norbert Hofer over the top. He lost Sunday’s election by more than 300,000 votes. As an also-ran, Hofer joins a long list of far-right-wing nut jobs who have come perilously close to leading European countries over the last few decades. Anti-Semite Jean Marie Le Pen forced a run-off in the French presidential election in 2002, but a concerted effort by everyone to the left of Genghis Khan produced a huge margin of victory for conservative Jacques Chirac. In the Balkans, far-right-wing candidate Corneliu Vadim Tudor of the Greater Romania Party came in second in Romania’s 2000 presidential elections, while far-right candidate Volen Siderov of the Attack party came in second in Bulgaria’s presidential elections in 2006. In Denmark, the People’s Party grabbed the second spot in the 2015 parliamentary elections. “Whew!” said Europe. “Dodged those bullets!” Indeed, many Europeans dearly hope that the victory of Green Party leader Alexander Van der Bellen in Austria’s presidential election proves that Donald Trump’s influence does not extend beyond the territorial waters of the United States. Sure, Britons supported Brexit — but that was by the slimmest of margins, and many of those “leave” voters had serious second thoughts the morning after. Up until recently the National Front’s Marine Le Pen was leading polls for the upcoming French elections in March. But the entrance of archconservative Francois Fillon into the race makes a replay of 2002’s trouncing of Le Pen the Elder much more likely. On the other hand, Italians went to the polls, also on Sunday, and rejected the referendum sponsored by current Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Voters turned against the measure for many reasons, but they were certainly signaling their displeasure with the political elite, and its economic policies. The clear winner in Italy on Sunday: the populist party of Beppe Grillo. It’s not just Italy heading in a populist, Euroskeptic direction. As I explained a couple weeks ago, populists anticipated the Trump era by taking over in Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia, incorporating into their agenda many of the demands of parties further to their right. In other words, Europe has dodged a few bullets, but it’s practically a fusillade out there. So, what’s it going to be, Europe? Are you going to follow the example of Austrian voters and establish yourself as a counterweight to Trump’s America? Or are you going to follow the example of Italian voters and be swept away by the Trump tide? With so much of the world coalescing around some fusion of capitalism and authoritarianism — in Russia, China, Turkey and Central Asia, most of the Middle East, much of Africa, and parts of the Far East and Latin America — much depends on Europe. Europe as Counterweight? During the George W. Bush administration, “old Europe” looked with horror at U.S. actions in Iraq and elsewhere. Both France and Germany refused to go along with the invasion of Iraq and fiercely opposed other practices of the Bush team, like extraordinary rendition and torture. Not all of Europe was so oppositional. The UK, under the self-aggrandizing Tony Blair, eagerly auditioned for the part of Washington’s lapdog. Poland, under the former Communists no less, hosted one of the CIA’s “black prisons.” And great moral voices, like Vaclav Havel, also backed the Bush administration, under the mistaken impression that Washington was engaged in a battle on behalf of human rights and Western civilization. A similar division is emerging in Europe today. Germany and, at least for the time being, France are looking at Donald Trump and his foreign policy team with shock and bewilderment. Before the election, French President Francois Hollande said that Trump’s “excesses make you want to retch” and indirectly recommended that American voters to support Hillary Clinton. Since the election, Hollande has focused on urging Trump not to scupper the Paris climate deal, something the president-elect promised to do during the election. But France may not serve as a counterweight to Trump for very long. Francois Fillon, the current presidential frontrunner, is only slightly closer to the center than Marine Le Pen. Like Norbert Hofer, he wants to wage a civilizational war against Islam, team up with Russia in this cause, reduce immigration, attack multiculturalism, and generally put France first. That leaves Angela Merkel and Germany. Merkel is perhaps an unlikely figure to stand up to the likes of Donald Trump. She is the leader of the conservative Christian Democratic party. She’s no liberal, much less a progressive. She’s never been comfortable with multiculturalism and recently backed a burqa ban. But she also welcomed a million refugees into Germany and has forcefully defended Ukraine against the predations of Russia. Moreover, she’s reinforced Germany’s position as the anchor of the European Union, an institution that Trump dismisses out of hand. Still, Christian Democrats in Germany are probably more to the left than many Democrats are in America. They’re certainly more committed to a social welfare state. And they take universal norms seriously. After the November election, Merkel was careful to remind the United States that the alliance is based on a set of values — “democracy, freedom, as well as respect for the rule of law and the dignity of each and every person regardless of their origin, skin color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or political views” — and not just geopolitical convenience. Germany’s Deputy Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, a Social Democrat, was considerably more emphatic: Trump is the trailblazer of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement. … They want a rollback to the bad old times in which women belonged by the stove or in bed, gays in jail, and unions at best at the side table. And he who doesn’t keep his mouth shut gets publicly bashed. Both major parties, meanwhile, have been hearing approaching footsteps on the right. The Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD), the latest Islamophobic political force to emerge in Germany, won over 14 percent of the votes in local elections in September in otherwise liberal Berlin. Like Norbert Hofer, the leader of the AfD is a scientist: chemist Frauke Petry. Under her equally soft-spoken and similarly xenophobic leadership, the AfD is pushing hard on the immigration issue, backing a new Integration Law that gives the state more power in determining the fate of refugees once they’re in Germany. Kerstin Koditz of the German left party Die Linke thinks it’s a terrible law: Migrants are deprived of all self-evident fundamental rights, such as the free choice of residence. The law provides them with jobs but pays them only eighty cents an hour. That’s not even a tenth of the minimum wage. Second-class citizens are being created — a poor prerequisite for integration. Don’t write off the European left quite yet. Hollande is out of the presidential race in France, so perhaps someone else from the Socialist Party can pull off an upset. The Social Democrats were actually the first-place winners in Germany’s local elections in September and they could conceivably cobble together a ruling coalition after the 2017 federal elections. Labor could take advantage of David Cameron’s miscues in the UK and retake power in the next elections (which have to take place before May 2020). The left is in charge in Greece and Sweden. The EU could rebound from the Brexit vote and find new purpose in a fragmenting world. Or… Things Fall Apart? Donald Trump is a divisive figure for all the usual reasons — his sexism, racism, xenophobia. But he also represents a larger, older project of division: the movement to unravel federal power, as I argue in a recent TomDispatch essay. In the United States, this anti-federalism can be found among those who don’t want to pay taxes, maintain public schools, protect federal lands from ranchers, fund abortion clinics, sustain national health care, and so on. In Europe, this anti-federalism appears as Euroskepticism. The same animus directed toward Washington elites translates across the Atlantic into hostility toward the bureaucracy in Brussels. The Trump tide can be measured in the growing popularity of populist figures like Norbert Hofer, Marine Le Pen, and Frauke Petry, as well as the greater tendency of mainstream politicians like Francois Fillon to draw from the same cesspool of ideas. But the real test of the Trump tide will be the durability of the EU itself. Can the levees that visionary European leaders built over the course of decades keep out the polluted floodwaters? On the one hand, the European Union seems solid enough. In 2013, with the accession of Croatia, it expanded to 28 members. Even with only modest growth — of less than 1 percent since the financial crisis of 2008-9 — the combined economic power of the EU ($19.1 trillion) remained ahead of the United States ($17.9 trillion) and just behind China ($19.5 trillion) in 2015. Despite some new walls in Eastern Europe to keep out refugees, the EU still meets former British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin’s definition of European integration as being able “to take a ticket at Victoria Station and go anywhere I damn well please.” But the EU requires a certain leap of faith. When its members no longer believe in it — no longer trust that it will remain an advantageous alliance of interests — then its bonds begin to loosen. The first step in that process may well be the Brexit vote earlier this year. Or perhaps that will serve as a wake-up call, a reminder of how unusual and precious transnational cooperation can be — whatever one might think of the EU’s actual policies. According to recently polling in several major member states, support for the EU has edged upward since the Brexit vote. Donald Trump’s presidential victory may well be an even stronger inoculation than the Brexit vote against the virus of right-wing populism and anti-federalist mania. Tides come in, often with tremendous destructive energy. But tides also go out. It’s still not clear what direction the Trump tide is heading. The post Can Europe Resist the Trump Tide? appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus. John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. 7 Dec

Charles Frith

SJW/BLM Owned Compilation Part 5 - The left have been coopted by ideas they don't even know are used for a higher divide and rule purpose (it's game theory). If only they could see the output from the toxic education system and the... Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced 24 Dec
DAY 61 - Where is Eric Braverman? - I found out years ago the Clintons were active in child sex trafficking in Haiti. It's a country the degenerate but rapidly dissolving establishment hate so much because that's where slavery was... Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced 24 Dec
The End of Cloud Computing - Peter Levine - There are some presentations worth listening to because they are explained so persuasively. Peter Levine does just such a job here but it is worth thinking about.  Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced 24 Dec
A Message To Barack Obama From Jimmy Dore - After 8 years of George W Bush I woke up in a hotel room in Bangkok to the soul lifting news that a hope and change black man was going to be president after winning the election. Well, I now... Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced 24 Dec
Saturday Night Fever - Too Good Not To Share. Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced 24 Dec
Links for 2016-12-23 [del.icio.us] - Sponsored: 64% off Code Black Drone with HD Camera Our #1 Best-Selling Drone--Meet the Dark Night of the Sky! 24 Dec
Are Federal Reserve Interest Rates About To Rise Markedly? - I'm the first one to put my hand up and admit I've spent to much time with Clif High over the years because though he got so much wrong, he did nail Margaret Thatcher's death and Hillary's collapse... Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced 23 Dec
Jimmy Dore - An Alt Left Hero I Like Very Much - Jimmy Dore has still much to learn much on Israel and 9/11 but he's the only sincere and honest commentator in politics who still believes in untainted socialism. The rest of the left are fake,... Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced 22 Dec
Links for 2016-12-21 [del.icio.us] - Sponsored: 64% off Code Black Drone with HD Camera Our #1 Best-Selling Drone--Meet the Dark Night of the Sky! 22 Dec
#PizzaGate: Unexplained Rates Of Missing Children Surrounding Washington D.C. - Strangely enough more children go missing in the same State (Virginia) as the CIA HQ than anywhere else. Old knowledge to people who research these things. Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced 21 Dec

From the Trenches World Report » Feed

The tribal war over property gifted to banned Indian chief - The New York Post Tribal warfare has broken out over a millionaire’s offer to give a piece of Manhattan — his West Village home — back to the Indians. Jean-Louis Goldwater Bourgeois is ready to bestow the $4 million house … Continue reading →13:47
The Six Questions That Could Change the World - Published on Dec 25, 2016 by HighImpactFlix Questions can be very instructive. Some questions are so powerful that, if answered honestly, could change the world as we know it…for the BETTER13:44
Santa’s cRaZy 2017 Survival Plan - The Organic Prepper I know it’s Christmas and you probably have a million things to do (I do too!) but I HAVE to tell you about this crazy little guy who showed up at my door today. He was short, … Continue reading →13:40
Israel’s Netanyahu Lashes out at Obama Over UN Vote - ABC News Israel’s prime minister lashed out at President Barack Obama on Saturday, accusing him of a “shameful ambush” at the United Nations over West Bank settlements and saying he is looking forward to working with his “friend” President-elect Donald … Continue reading →09:15
‘No survivors’ as Syria-bound Russian jet crashes - Yahoo News Moscow (AFP) – A Russian military plane heading to Syria crashed into the Black Sea on Sunday, with no sign of survivors among the 92 on board, including Red Army Choir members on their way to celebrate the … Continue reading →09:10
California man fights DUI charge for driving under influence of caffeine - The Guardian Caffeine may be the “nootropic” brain drug of choice in Silicon Valley, but an hour’s drive north in Solano County, California, the stimulant could get you charged with driving under the influence. That is according to defense attorney … Continue reading →09:10
Israel To Re-Assess U.N. Ties After Settlement Resolution, Says Netanyahu - World Events and the Bible WEB Notes: Numerous Christian websites are touting this as some horrible knock against “God’s chosen people”. The notion that God’s chosen people are so called “jews” is a lie, it is the biggest lie placed … Continue reading →09:07
Chile earthquake triggers tsunami warning - BBC News A powerful 7.6-magnitude earthquake has struck off the coast of Chile, prompting a tsunami warning. The quake struck about 40km (25 miles) south-west of Quellon in southern Chile at 14:22 GMT, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) said. … Continue reading →09:04
Berlin Plans ‘Center Of Defense Against Fake News’ Ahead Of Elections - World Events and the Bible WEB Notes: This fake news nonsense is not going away. It is now being implemented as policy and will be limiting free speech in the very near future. The German government is seeking to create … Continue reading →07:39
NYPD Suspends Officer Who Posted Snapchat Of Brooklyn Family In Handcuffs - ABC 7 News BROWNSVILLE, Brooklyn (WABC) — A family in Brooklyn is outraged after NYPD officers raided their home, put everyone in handcuffs and then posted a picture of them on social media with the caption “Merry Christmas Its NYPD.” … Continue reading →07:37

Related articles

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)