|
FOCUS: 'Moderate' John Kasich Is Actually Terrifying |
|
|
Saturday, 19 March 2016 11:58 |
|
Berney writes: "John Kasich is such an appealing guy, isn't he? He went to a same-sex wedding once. He thinks Donald Trump's plan to deputize the violent thugs at his rallies so they can kick out all the brown people is pretty unreasonable. His folksy Midwestern-dad charm gives Democrats fits of terror when we imagine facing him in the general election."
John Kasich. (photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)

'Moderate' John Kasich Is Actually Terrifying
By Jesse Berney, Rolling Stone
19 March 16
Kasich may not be the racist egomaniac Trump is, but he'd take America backward in a thousand ways
ohn Kasich is such an appealing guy, isn't he? He went to a same-sex wedding once. He thinks Donald Trump's plan to deputize the violent thugs at his rallies so they can kick out all the brown people is pretty unreasonable. His folksy Midwestern-dad charm gives Democrats fits of terror when we imagine facing him in the general election.
He's the anti-Trump and the anti-Ted Cruz, neither a demonstrably racist egomaniac nor a pinched and sleazy blowhard.
Add that all together, and it spells M-O-D-E-R-A-T-E.
Kasich was always supposed to be the moderate in the race, which is why he wasn't given much of a chance of surviving until Iowa, let alone this late in the game. But on Tuesday, he won his home state, winner-take-all Ohio, throwing a genuine wrench into Trump's march toward the nomination.
He has as much a shot at that nomination as Cruz does. Both are going to need a brokered convention to win, and Cruz's habit of alienating literally every human being he comes in contact with might put his chances at risk. Why shouldn't the convention turn to Kasich, who will come in with the third-most delegates and the best shot at beating Hillary Clinton in the fall?
After all, he'll tempt plenty of independents who distrust her. And the Bernie Sanders supporters who will hold their nose to vote for Clinton to avoid a Donald Trump-led apocalypse might not be as motivated when the aw-shucks governor of Ohio is her opponent. A Wall Street Democrat versus a moderate Republican? Why bother? (Nader voters from 2000 will be familiar with this sentiment, as well as the feeling of being proven terribly wrong over the next eight years.)
Despite his carefully cultivated appearance, and despite comparisons to the moron and the goblin left standing next to him, John Kasich is no moderate. A cursory look at his record proves the opposite: On the issues that matter, Kasich is a deep-red conservative who would do everything in his power to move America in an uglier, more regressive direction.
Let's look at just one issue: the right of women in Ohio to get an abortion when they need one. As governor, Kasich has done everything in his power to put roadblock after roadblock in their way.
Kasich has worked with the legislature to jam some of the nation's most restrictive anti-abortion policies into the state's budget (a neat trick that makes them easier to pass).
In 2013, the budget defunded Planned Parenthood, eliminating $1.4 million in federal funds that went toward a wide variety of health care services — and not a penny toward abortion, since federal dollars can't pay for abortion anyway.
That same budget funded so-called "crisis pregnancy centers," fake health clinics that offer free pregnancy tests and sometimes ultrasounds to draw women in the door, where counselors ply them with false information claiming abortion causes everything from breast cancer to cooties.
Thanks to Kasich, women in Ohio who need an abortion must undergo an ultrasound — and a doctor must describe the fetus to them — a condescending, harassing provision that implies women don't understand what being pregnant actually is, and that once they find out, they won't want an abortion anymore. (Turns out they pretty much all still do.)
Perhaps ugliest of all, Kasich's 2013 budget banned rape crisis counselors from referring victims of sexual assault to abortion services. Tell a woman who's been raped how to end a pregnancy, and you lose your funding from the state.
John Kasich thinks women who are raped shouldn't be told where they can get an abortion, and he used the power of his governorship to stop it.
The 2015 budget included further restrictions to abortion clinics, meaningless requirements masquerading as "protecting women's health" with the actual purpose of shutting clinics down. And shut down they have: About half of Ohio's abortion providers have shuttered since Kasich took office, and that number could easily rise.
That's the real John Kasich. Not the friendly dad on the debate stage shaking his head at all the bickering. Not the guy who attended a same-sex wedding — the one who went, and still opposes same-sex marriage. Not the one who sounds reasonable and kind — the one who would keep a rape victim from learning where she can end her pregnancy.
The Republican Party has three choices left: a man who would fundamentally destroy the values that actually make America great, a conservative true believer who would take America backward in a thousand different directions… and Ted Cruz.

|
|
Naomi Klein: 'I Don't Trust' Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders 'Is a Significantly Better Candidate' |
|
|
Saturday, 19 March 2016 08:48 |
|
Excerpt: "Canadian author and journalist Naomi Klein has weighed in on the United States presidential contest, criticizing frontrunner Hillary Clinton and voicing her support for rival Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic nomination."
Naomi Klein. (photo: The Greanville Post)

Naomi Klein: 'I Don't Trust' Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders 'Is a Significantly Better Candidate'
By Al Jazeera
19 March 16
The Canadian author weighs in on US presidential election, backing Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.
anadian author and journalist Naomi Klein has weighed in on the United States presidential contest, criticising frontrunner Hillary Clinton and voicing her support for rival Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic nomination.
In an interview with Al Jazeera's UpFront programme, which will air on Friday night, Klein took issue with Clinton's efforts to combat climate change.
The author of the best-selling books No Logo and This Changes Everything told host Mehdi Hasan that she does not trust the former secretary of state.
"I don't trust her because as secretary of state, when she had a huge megaphone to make this an issue, to show that she understands the connections between human security and climate, she didn't use the megaphone," Klein said.
She also criticised Clinton's links to major donors, saying her ties to corporations made her hard to elect.
"I think that Bernie Sanders could win in a general election. I actually think he is a significantly better candidate than Hillary Clinton," she said.
"The power of the socialism smear [campaign against Sanders], I think has really lost a lot of its punch."
Klein also discussed the climate efforts in her own country, Canada, under new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
"I think [Canada has] done some important things, but what they're doing on climate is not nearly enough,” she said.
"I think Trudeau wants us to love him,” she added. “And because of that, that gives us more to work with."
Despite her passionate efforts to tackle climate change through her advocacy, books and films, Klein admitted that she leaves a substantial carbon footprint through her international travel.
"My huge sin is flying," she said. "You know, I wrote in a book that I finally lost my frequent flyer status and cut my flying by 10 percent, but even though I try to do as much as I can by Skype, I've been flying way too much."

|
|
|
Guantanamo, 14 Years Later |
|
|
Saturday, 19 March 2016 08:44 |
|
Fernandez writes: "2015 was supposed to be the year I visited Guantanamo Bay. I was meant to attend pretrial hearings in April for the five 'HVDs' - high-value detainees - held at the prison. The HVDs are accused of involvement in 9/11; topping the list is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks."
Guantanamo detainees, in white, and U.S. military guards walk around Camp 4 detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay. (photo: AP)

Guantanamo, 14 Years Later
By Belén Fernández, teleSUR
19 March 16
Gitmo is an offshore penal colony that’s close enough to administer with ease, but far enough away to exist on the margins of legality.
2015 was supposed to be the year I visited Guantánamo Bay.
I was meant to attend pretrial hearings in April for the five “HVDs” — high-value detainees — held at the prison. The HVDs are accused of involvement in 9/11; topping the list is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks.
I booked a flight from Beirut to Washington, D.C., and badgered the army official in charge of allocating seats on the plane from Andrews Air Force Base to Guantánamo until I was assured a spot. When I arrived to D.C., however, I was informed that the hearings had been canceled due to complications arising from the FBI’s infiltration of one of the defense teams the previous year.
As defense lawyer Ramzi Kassem had remarked a few months earlier: “The imperatives and mechanics of justice and intelligence gathering are, to a significant extent, incompatible. Nowhere is that contradiction sharper than at Guantánamo, where those two worlds collide.”
This particular observation had been made in response not to the FBI infiltration but rather to the news that one of the interpreters at Guantánamo client was an ex-employee of a CIA black site.
As the prison complex now celebrates its 14th birthday — more than seven years after Barack Obama promised to shut it down — worldly collision continues apace. And while it may be clear to any objective observer that “justice” does not exist within the realm of possible outcomes at a U.S. detention camp-cum-torture chamber operated on occupied Cuban territory, the U.S. makes every effort to distract from the bigger picture by cultivating a façade of fairness and respect for human dignity in day-to-day procedures at Guantánamo.
Back in 2010, for example, The Miami Herald’s Carol Rosenberg reported on “a new twist in the U.S. military’s Islamic sensitivity effort in the prison camps … Military medical staff are force-feeding a secret number of prisoners on hunger strike between dusk and dawn during the Muslim fasting holiday of Ramadan.” Among the enticing menu selections was butter pecan-flavored Ensure (“Flavor made no difference going down, one nurse explained, but a captive could taste it if he burped later”).
Never mind that the apparent respect for Ramadan is more than canceled out by the fact that having feeding tubes jammed into one’s orifices against one’s will is also a form of torture. According to the U.S. approach, a million wrongs somehow make a right.
But what exactly is the point of keeping Guantánamo open when it’s widely regarded as a liability — detrimental to the American image worldwide and fueling anti-American sentiment — in addition to being mind-blowingly expensive?
For starters, ample bipartisan commitment to over-the-top incarceration schemes, not to mention the sizable profits generated by the prison industry, is part of what has helped make the U.S. a veritable prison nation.
Guantánamo, of course, is a special case: an offshore penal colony that’s close enough to administer with ease but far enough away to exist on the margins of legality.
Writing in The New Yorker about the naval base’s pre-9/11 functions, Vanderbilt University’s Paul Kramer discusses the territory’s utility as a holding pen for Haitians attempting to flee the brutal 1991 coup in that country. By July 1992, he notes, refugee interception operations by the U.S. Coast Guard had led to a situation in Guantánamo in which “nearly 37,000 people were confined in makeshift tent cities ringed with barbed wire.”
Regarding the ensuing showdown in a New York court over the camp’s dismal conditions, Kramer explains: “Lawyers for the government responded that Gitmo was simply ‘a military base in a foreign country’ and ‘not United States territory.’ Detainees there were ‘outside the United States and therefore they have no judicially cognizable rights in United States courts.’”
A convenient precedent, no doubt.
In its current incarnation, the attractions of Guantánamo are numerous. The facility houses America’s mega-enemies, whose human qualities as well as possible motivations for the crimes they’re alleged to have committed are kept safely out of reach of the U.S. public. This justifies not only their continued imprisonment and mistreatment but also ongoing war against other larger-than-life threats across the globe.
Furthermore, Guantánamo offers a hermetic container for more than just physical bodies: thoughts, too, are contained. Because so many of the details of the pervasive torture meted out to terror suspects in the aftermath of 9/11 by the U.S. and its allies are deemed too dangerous to release, many victims of torture who are now detained at Guantánamo are effectively silenced. As Lisa Hajjar, author of “Torture: A Sociology of Violence and Human Rights,” once put it: “Their memories are classified.”
Inmate Mohamedou Ould Slahi’s book Guantánamo Diary, written in 2005, was finally published last year with more than 2,500 Defense Department redactions. Military censors took the liberty of removing not only pertinent information about Slahi’s sexual abuse by guards but also more seemingly banal details like the name of the late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.
But even if these and other valuable state secrets begin to seep out of the prison camp, prospects for terminating the whole abusive structure remain dim. As James Connell, a civilian counsel for HVD Ammar al-Baluchi, commented in an email to me:
“Closing Guantánamo means standing up for human rights and the rule of law, which are not politically popular in the United States at the moment. Even President Obama’s [‘closure’] plan doesn't actually close Guantánamo; it simply relocates indefinite detention and military tribunals to a Guantánamo North within the United States.”
And while, at 14, the detention camp may still be relatively young, it’s pretty much guaranteed that — no matter what happens in Gitmo — the U.S. disdain for justice will continue to thrive.

|
|
US Becomes Laughingstock of World for Something Other Than Gun Laws |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 18 March 2016 13:41 |
|
Borowitz writes: "In an indication of shifting global attitudes toward the United States, the nation has become the laughingstock of the world for something other than its gun laws, a new survey of foreigners indicates."
Donald Trump. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty)

US Becomes Laughingstock of World for Something Other Than Gun Laws
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
18 March 16
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report." 
n an indication of shifting global attitudes toward the United States, the nation has become the laughingstock of the world for something other than its gun laws, a new survey of foreigners indicates.
According to the survey, which was conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, America’s gun laws, which used to inspire the most derision toward the country from people around the world, now place a distant second.
In another startling result, the U.S. Congress’s position on climate change, which in the past had been a leading candidate for making the U.S. the world’s favorite punch line, also finished far out of the money.
Davis Logsdon, who supervised the poll for the University of Minnesota, said he was struck by the unanimity of foreign respondents when they were asked to name what, in their opinion, currently made the United States the laughingstock of the world.
“In all the years we’ve done this survey, we have never had ninety-four per cent of respondents give an identical answer,” he said.
When asked to explain why they chose the answer they did, a wide majority of those surveyed were unable to stop laughing long enough to give a coherent response, Logsdon said.

|
|