|By: dakine01 Thursday August 18, 2011 2:26 pm|
We have manufactured a crisis, in Ukraine, to stoke fear in the american people so that they will accept more austerity so that money could be spent on an aggressive military adventure three quarters of the way across the Globe. For the 1% it is business as usual. Shell is in Russia, thus supporting the savaging of the Crimean people through referendum.
Royal Dutch Shell’s new CEO Ben Van Beurden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, signaling Ukraine tension has not affected investment in Russia, and that energy contracts won’t be derailed by international politics.
Chief executive Van Beurden met with the president at his residence outside of Moscow and reaffirmed the company’s commitment to develop Russia’s only liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant with Gazprom.
“We also know that this is going to be a project that will need strong support to succeed. So one of my purposes of meeting with you, Mr. President, is to also secure support for the way forward on this project,”Van Beurden said.
“Now is the time to expand this lucrative project, we will need strong support to make it a success,” the oil chief said.
Putin said he was happy that Shell is continuing its work in Russia.”
No level of hypocrisy is too much for Obama. A crisis so severe, so menacing that it requires large troop deployment, addition fighter jets being dispatched, more frequent and substantial patrols of every kind in the Black Sea, the necessity to give on going televised accounts of the crisis and what he is doing and is going to do to stop this menace from taking over the world………….he may be worse than Bush. at least Bush was straight forward about being a warmonger. Obama is worse. He is the ultimate hypocrite in almost every aspect of his presidency. He is worse than Bush, He is Bush in sheeps clothing.
I am sure that he will continue to warmonger for oil deals for the 1% in Russia.
|By: danps Sunday December 5, 2010 2:24 pm|
Cross posted from Pruning Shears.
Over the past week there has been a spirited discussion of the 2008 Democratic primary at Corrente. One point of contention in the comments has been the way principles were invoked in the heat of the process. For instance, caucuses were heavily criticized as being too prone to fraud. I think caucuses are useful in theory because they help measure the intensity of a candidate’s support, not just breadth of it. That’s important in a general election because a motivated base is crucial to an effective get-out-the-vote effort.
In practice, though, the caucus system is unworkable because it has no transparency and no auditing. Partisans gather in a gymnasium and only the people gathered know what’s going on. Rules can be bent or broken, outright fraud can occur, and in the aftermath there are just charges or countercharges.
The party has little interest in investigating because once the nomination is clinched only bad things could come of it: De-legitimizing the nominee or further inflaming the losing side. Barring radical changes like extensive live streaming (web cams for everyone!) during the process, and an independent audit afterwards, caucus results in any close contest will be viewed with deep skepticism.
Another example of principles being hurriedly invoked has to do with the convention calendar. State parties eager to increase the relevance of their vote have frequently moved their election dates in defiance of the national party. The national party threatens sanctions, usually in the form of disallowing the delegates, and in a tight race the winner of those states will have a powerful incentive to invoke the sanctity of the vote and the specter of disenfranchisement to argue for counting the delegates.
Making these points when the stakes are so high carries more than a whiff of self-interest. It’s much more persuasive if one can point to such positions prior to the horse race. So even though we are over two and a half years from the next presidential election, right now is an especially good time to articulate some principles. Once candidates start to declare, it becomes much harder to raise them without having it perceived as being for someone’s benefit.
With that in mind, here are a few thoughts on how I’d like to see the nominating process conducted/analyzed. Whether one intends to participate in the process or not (the comments at Corrente suggest quite a few people were sufficiently alienated by 2008 to swear off further involvement), primary season will be big news; it will be helpful to have a decent frame if only for jaded observation.
- Caucus results should be lightly regarded for the reasons above.
- State parties should have to live with sanctions from the national party for changing election dates. Disenfranchisemet because of that is the responsibility of the state party, not the national one. The national one, in its wisdom, sets the calendar how it likes. State parties should be expected to abide by that or suffer the consequences.
- Debates should be open to any candidate that is actively campaigning, has field offices in upcoming (say six weeks) election states and is polling above the margin of error in at least half of the major polls. (A candidate’s internal polling results shouldn’t be used.)
- A candidate’s position on an issue should be qualified by the nature of that position. For instance, most Democratic candidates will probably pay lip service to single payer. But there is a world of difference between “sure, I’d love for us to have it” and “this is my top domestic priority, a vote for me is a vote for single payer, and I will rally a citizen occupation of Washington starting the first day Congress is in session to make that happen.”
- A candidate’s position should also be qualified by the ability of the candidate to make the change happen. Presidents have great latitude in executive areas like judicial nominations and federal agency rule making, less so in legislation. A Democrat who promises liberal utopia based on getting a raft of legislation through Congress – especially the House – is probably blowing smoke. That said, reality is malleable. We are told by our political betters that single payer is unrealistic, but a campaign like the one described above could make it suddenly become realistic.
- Finally, we need a policy platform to grade candidates against. I’d humbly recommend a project I’ve contributed to as an example. Over the past few months the community at Corrente has been working on a 12 point platform, and I think it’s quite good. Here is an earlier version with a good breakdown of its different components, and here is the latest iteration. It’s been formulated outside of election season with the goal of creating a durable and just set of policies. I think it’s a fine yardstick to measure candidates against. I’m sure some will find it lacking, but the point is to have something to evaluate candidates against.
Those are my markers. What are yours?
|By: letsgetitdone Sunday January 9, 2011 8:33 am|
In my last post, I took issue with a recent column by Catherine Rampell, who tries to make the case that seniors haven’t paid for their Social Security and Medicare because they “generally receive” more in benefits out of these programs than they pay into them. Rampell relies on an Urban Institute study to make her case. Since that post, she’s offered another that replies to some of the questions raised by commenters on her earlier effort. I’ll reply to that new post shortly, but first I want to present key points emerging from my analysis of Federal monetary operations in my reply to her earlier post. See that post for the full argument.
First, once Congress mandates spending, there is no way that the Treasury can be forced into insolvency or an inability to pay its obligations as long as it is willing to make use of all the ways it can cause the Fed to create reserve credits in Treasury spending accounts which can then be used for its reserve keystroking into private sector account activities that today represent most of the reality of Federal spending.
|By: Elliott Thursday March 1, 2012 8:00 pm|
Today at 5pm ET, 2pm PT
The Gulf of Tonkin Events – Fifty Years Later: A Footnote to the History of the Vietnam War
Chat with John White about his new book, hosted by Pulitzer Prize winner Deborah J. Nelson.
The war in Vietnam essentially began in 1964 in response to what the American government claimed was an unprovoked attack upon two U.S. naval ships, the destroyers USS Maddox (DD-731) and USS Turner Joy (DD-951), while they were steaming peacefully on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin off Vietnam. Although there was a U.S. military presence in Vietnam before that, the Tonkin events led to congressional action which allowed President Lyndon Johnson (and, later, President Richard Nixon) to escalate our military presence enormously and to wage war not only in Vietnam but also covertly in Southeast Asia. Among the many books written on the Vietnamese war, half a dozen note a 1967 letter to the editor of a Connecticut newspaper which was instrumental in pressuring the Johnson administration to tell the truth about how the war was started. The letter was mine. It became, in the words of one author, “a national sensation.” Actually, that was an understatement. It became an international sensation. On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin events, this is an account of my role and its aftermath, both personal and political. – From the Foreword
JOHN WHITE is an internationally known author who writes about the human mind and spirituality and their relationship to social and political affairs. He has published 16 books, including The Meeting of Science and Spirit, What Is Enlightenment?, A Practical Guide to Death and Dying and (for children) The Christmas Mice. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, Esquire, Woman’s Day and many other newspapers and magazines. His books have been translated into ten languages. Mr. White was born in 1939. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Dartmouth College (1961) and a Master of Arts in Teaching from Yale University (1969). He has taught English and journalism on the secondary and college levels. After college, Mr. White served four years in the U.S. military as a naval officer, primarily in antisubmarine warfare and nuclear weaponry. In 1972, Mr. White worked with Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell to begin The Institute of Noetic Sciences, a research organization founded by Dr. Mitchell to study the human potential for personal and planetary transformation. Now retired, Mr. White lives in Cheshire, Connecticut. (Amazon)
On the morning of April 20, 1914, agents of the Baldwin-Felts detective agency along with Colorado national guardsmen massed on a ridge overlooking a tent city of hundreds of coal miners and their families that occupied the plain below – roughly a half mile from the village of Ludlow, Colorado. They came armed, with some men on horseback but with others setting up machine gun positions able to sweep over the encampment. Inside the thin cotton tents some 1200 men, women and children stirred and began their day as they had throughout the preceding months. during one of the coldest Colorado winters in recent memory.
The miners and their families had been living in the tents since John D. Rockefeller’s Colorado Coal and Fuel company along with 2 other coal operators had thrown them out of company houses in September of the previous fall. The companies had refused the demands of the miners and a strike/lockout had begun. The coal companies had hoped the brutal cold and isolation of the winter would break the striker’s resolve and end the confrontation.
Throughout the cold months, there had been skirmishes, with the Baldwin-Felts agents firing shots into the camp, wounding and on occasion killing strikers. With the arrival of spring, it became apparent that the miners and their families would be able to hold out for much longer, perhaps indefinitely.
The morning had begun with the strike’s organizer, Louis Tikas, being lured out of the camp to a meeting with the militia’s leader on the pretext of negotiating the release of two men who were supposedly wanted by authorities Tikas, who had dealt with the captain many times before, sensed something amiss during the meeting and cut it short, rushing back to his people in the tent city. As he returned, the Baldwin-Felts agents opened fire, sending a terrifying hail of soft-point bullets ripping through the fabric of the tents. So began the bloodiest and deadliest labor battle America has ever seen.
By today’s standards, the striker’s demands seem tame:
1. Recognition of the union as bargaining agent
2. An increase in tonnage rates (equivalent to a 10% wage increase)
3. Enforcement of the eight-hour work day law
4. Payment for “dead work” (laying track, timbering, handling impurities, etc.)
5. Weight-checkmen elected by the workers (to keep company weightmen honest)
6. The right to use any store, and choose their boarding houses and doctors
7. Strict enforcement of Colorado’s laws (such as mine safety rules, abolition of scrip), and an end to the company guard system
The nascent United Mine Workers of America had done their best in preparation for the strike. They leased land for the encampment and built the tents on wood platforms. They provided as much support as they were able, including their most potent asset, Mary Harris Jones.
Before being known as a magazine, Mother Jones was notorious as a fiery organizer and activist – referred to at times as the most dangerous woman in America. She galvanized support and attention on the striker’s plight and during her visits brought together the immigrant women, wives of the miners, bridging divides of culture and language that the coal operators hoped would keep them separate.
The cost of militia patrols were mounting for the state of Colorado and the governor was growing tired of the standoff at Ludlow and other mines. The cost of the private detectives bore heavily on Rockefeller’s coffers as well. The pressure for a quick resolution to the conflict was mounting. It was in this atmosphere that the battle was sparked.
The gunfire continued through the entire day – 14 hours. The strikers had dug pits beneath the tents to protect them from the sniper fire that had plagued them all winter. The militia and detectives picked off some of the men, but most of the camp was able to take shelter beneath the tents. At one point a passing train gave some of the strikers cover and a few fled to the nearby hills. As night approached at 7:00 pm the militiamen descended on horseback into the camp.
Using paraffin and torches, they set fire to the tents. In the ensuing pandemonium numerous of the miners were gunned down. Beneath one of the tents, which functioned as a nursery, nearly a dozen children, many of them infants, and two of the women taking take of them, suffocated and burned to death.
Tikas had stayed on in the camp to the end, and was rounded up along with other union organizers. One of the officers of the militia was seen to break his gunstock over Tikas’ head. Shortly after, Tikas was killed and for the next three days his body lay in the field were he died. Finally, railroad workers recovered the remains, He was found to have been shot in the back.
|By: Dennis Trainor Jr Saturday April 19, 2014 3:37 pm|
Originally Posted at PopularResistance.org
Dennis talks with Dr. Jill Stein, President of the Green Shadow Cabinet about the recently published U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment on climate change. The findings, combined with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, paint a picture of humanity committing a collective genocide and ecocide. The end of civilization scenarios, once projected for your grandchildren’s grandchildren are now a reality for anyone ho plans to be alive in 2050.
“The IPCC has finally stepped up to the plate in saying what we are up against,” says Dr. Stein, “but they have not begin to step up to the plate, in fact they are really not qualified to say how we fix this. The IPCC is not calling for radical transformation. They have yelled, ‘fire!’ and come out with a squirt gun. What they are calling for is not what we need.”
In the second half of the show, Dennis sits down with Dr. Margret Flowers.
Recently, Dr. Flowers initiated an online petition declaring herself a conscientious objector to the Affordable Care Act and asking others to send a message to President Obama that the ACA is a scam.
“The most important conversation we should be having right now in the United States is not how many people are insured,” says Dr. Flowers “knowing that insurance is not protective, it’s: do we want to continue to treat healthcare as a commodity where people only get what they can afford, or do we want to join the rest of the industrialized nations in the world and treat healthcare as a public good and create a system where people can get what they need.”
Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) is a mother, physician, longtime teacher of internal medicine, and pioneering environmental-health advocate. She was the 2012 Green Party presidential nominee and current president of the Green Shadow Cabinet. She is also an initiator behind the Global Climate Convergence, which is an education and direct action campaign running from Mother Earth Day to May Day. It seeks to build collaboration across national borders and fronts of struggle to harness the transformative power we already possess as a thousand separate movements springing up across the planet.
Dr. Margaret Flowers (MFlowers8) is a pediatrician from Baltimore who is an organizer at PopularResistance.org, co-directs ItsOurEconomy.us and co-hosts Clearing the FOG on We Act Radio. She is adviser to the board of Physicians for a National Health Program and is on the steering committee of the Maryland Health Care is a Human Right campaign.
Dennis Trainor, Jr. (@DennisTrainorJr) is a writer, host and producer. His documentary on the Occupy movement, American Autumn: an Occudoc, garnered critical praise from The New York Times, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and more. He also wrote and directed Legalize Democracy, a documentary short about the Movement To Amend the Constitution. Trainor was an embedded YouTube personality/media advisor on the staff of Dennis Kucinich’s 2008 presidential campaign and his work is regularly published on The Huffington Post, Truth Out, The Real New Network, Popular Resistance and several others.
This episode of Acronym TV was filmed at The Real News Network in Baltimore, MD.
Director – Jamar Jemison
Assistant Director + Camera op – Chris DeMillo
Audio – Charles Waters
Camera- Denise Rivera, Michael Johnson
Makeup – Kelsey Johnson
Writer – Dennis Trainor, Jr.
* Disclosure: PopularResistance.org provides partial funding for Acronym TV
|By: Ruth Calvo Tuesday January 24, 2012 8:00 pm|
(Picture courtesy of liftarn at wikimedia commons.)
If you are going out for dinner for Easter, sorry, but wouldn’t you prefer real food, and prefer not to put things into your system that are harmful? Okay, if you don’t thank me after reading this, I am sorry.
The subject line may strike you as unnecessary advice, but if you know what you’re eating when you buy into restaurant fare, you may well be doing that very thing.
The research kitchens that are making food that appeals to us do not put our health as their motivation, but their profits.
Would you like a cow eyeball with your burger?One of the more-enduring urban legends about McDonald’s is that their hamburgers contain cow eyeballs. While this has not proven to be the case, the company’s Baked Hot Apple Pie does contain duck feathers, or at least an ingredient commonly derived from such. Truth can be just as strange as fiction.How have duck feathers become a viable ingredient in apple pie? Welcome to the world of food additives. People have been adding flavors, spices, natural preservatives and ripening agents to food since antiquity. But as the popularity of highly processed food has risen dramatically since the 1950s, so has the astounding array of bizarre chemical additives used in food manufacturing. Fast-food recipes seem to be born more from the laboratory than from farm or field.And although the powers that be deem these food-additive chemicals safe, the science fiction of it all is a bit unsettling. How do we come up with these things? Here are some of the wackiest of the bunch.1. Duck feathers and human hair (L-cysteine)You thought duck feathers sounded bad? How about human hair? These are the two most-common sources for l-cysteine, an amino acid used to condition dough for increased pliability, which facilitates better machine processing. CNN reported that most human-derived L-cysteine comes from Chinese women who help support their families by selling their locks to small chemical-processing plants.Although originally the primary source for L-cysteine was human hair, many manufacturers seem to have moved away from hair-derived L-cysteine and on to the more-palatable duck feathers. According to Jeanne Yacoubou, MS, research editor for The Vegetarian Resource Group, 80 percent of L-cysteine is now derived from feathers. During her research, McDonald’s told Yacoubou that the L-cysteine used in its Baked Hot Apple Pie, as well as its Wheat Roll and Warm Cinnamon Roll, was of the duck-feather variety. Many other fast-food joints rely on L-cysteine in bakery products as well.And not to be sensationalist here, the resultant additive is far-removed from its original source — but still. It may be disturbing to many, and importantly, may fly in the face of ethical or religious dietary restrictions.
…snip… (Please click the above link before the blockquote to see the remainder of the 8 mystery foods)Generally recognized as safe (GRAS)
These four little words seem to have become the FDA mantra when it comes to food additives; all of the above ingredients, and an expansive array of other chemical additives, have been generally recognized as safe in scientific studies. Taken out of context and looked at individually, maybe a little ammonium sulfate here and a petroleum product there aren’t going to cause quantitative damage to lab animals. But if you were to add up all of the chemical ingredients consumed during a life of a fast-food fueled Western diet, what would that look like? Would it look like an epidemic of obesity, diabetes or cancer?Michael Pollan‘s advice, ”Don’t eat anything your grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food” never seemed so appealing.
If you were just planning a trip to the local garbage purveyor – which is how I regard fast food outlets – if you decided not to, I’m glad for you,