RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: An Idiot's Guide to Why They Hate Us Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37532"><span class="small">Paul Street, CounterPunch</span></a>   
Tuesday, 22 December 2015 12:59

Street writes: "In its endless, candidate-obsessed coverage and discussion of the already seemingly interminable U.S. presidential horse race (the actual presidential election is still more than ten months away), U.S. corporate media fact-checkers, reporters, and commentators have had a field day finding inaccuracies, offensiveness, and absurdities in the statements of the current Republican pack-leader Donald Trump."

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)


An Idiot's Guide to Why They Hate Us

By Paul Street, CounterPunch

22 December 15

 

n its endless, candidate-obsessed coverage and discussion of the already seemingly interminable U.S. presidential horse race (the actual presidential election is still more than ten months away), U.S. corporate media fact-checkers, reporters, and commentators have had a field day finding inaccuracies, offensiveness, and absurdities in the statements of the current Republican pack-leader Donald Trump. It’s not hard to do. “The Donald’s” rambling orations and constant Tweets are loaded with transparently false assertions and ridiculous comments, including:

* The claim that Barack Obama lacks a United States Birth Certificate

* The promise to build “a great, great wall on our southern border and…make Mexico pay for it.”

* The claim that Mexico is sending “rapists” to the United States.

* “The concept of global warming was created by the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

* The claim that former long-term prisoner of war John McCain isn’t really a “war hero” since he’d been captured by the U.S. enemy during the Vietnam War (Trump made sure to attend college with a student deferment from the Vietnam War draft).

* “There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am” (repeat the same parenthetical comment at the end of the previous bullet point).

* “Our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!” (just a little racist)

* “Arianna Huffington is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man- he made a good decision (one of many examples in which Trump has insulted the looks of a prominent women).

* The ludicrous claim that Trump saw “thousands of people” in New Jersey cheering the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

The dominant (“mainstream’) media has had little difficulty showing and noting how and why these and numerous other Trump ejaculations are outrageous. It’s no surprise that a recent New York Times assessment of the presidential candidates’ truthfulness found Trump to be grossly deficient when it comes to veracity. The media’s top political fact checker, Angie Drobac Holan, notes that “Mr. Trump’s record on truth and accuracy is astonishingly poor.” His 76% Falsehood rating (three-fourths of the 70 Trump statements carefully examined by Holan’s Politifact Website came up untrue) is exceeded only by the wacky Republican brain surgeon Ben Carson, who is batting .840 at the inaccuracy plate (by contrast, Bernie Sanders rates 28%)

“The Hatred is Beyond Comprehension”

It’s revealing, however, that the same media has nothing really to offer on the clueless stupidity of something that Trump said in the wake of the Islamic State terror attacks in Paris and a mass shooting carried out by a “radicalized” Muslim couple in San Bernardino, California. I’m referring to Trump’s argument that Muslims should be barred from the United States “until the country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.”

“Without looking at the various polling data” Trump later elaborated, “it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine,” Trump said in a statement. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, that have no sense of reason or respect for human life” (emphasis added).

The statement is either incredibly disingenuous or astonishingly foolish. Nobody who is reasonably knowledgeable and honest about the long and ongoing history of U.S.- and Western-imperial policy in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and Africa has any business claiming to find the origins of anti-American and anti-Western terrorism in the Muslim world mysterious.

An “Aerial Traffic Jam” of “One-Sided Massacre” (1991)

“No sense of reason or respect for human life”? Seriously? Among the countless episodes of mass-murderous U.S. savagery in the Muslim world, one that I can never seem to forget occurred a quarter-century ago. I am referring to the epic carnage wreaked by the U.S. military on Iraq’s notorious “Highway of Death,” where U.S. forces massacred tens of thousands of surrendered Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait on February 26 and 27, 1991. The Lebanese-American journalist Joyce Chediac testified that:

“U.S. planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles in the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours. ‘It was like shooting fish in a barrel,’ said one U.S. pilot. On the sixty miles of coastal highway, Iraqi military units sit in gruesome repose, scorched skeletons of vehicles and men alike, black and awful under the sun…for 60 miles every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, every truck is riddled with shell fragments. No survivors are known or likely…. ‘Even in Vietnam I didn’t see anything like this. It’s pathetic,’ said Major Bob Nugent, an Army intelligence officer…U.S. pilots took whatever bombs happened to be close to the flight deck, from cluster bombs to 500 pound bombs…U.S. forces continued to drop bombs on the convoys until all humans were killed. So many jets swarmed over the inland road that it created an aerial traffic jam, and combat air controllers feared midair collisions…. The victims were not offering resistance…it was simply a one-sided massacre of tens of thousands of people who had no ability to fight back or defend.” (Ramsey Clark et al., War Crimes: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal, testimony of Joyce Chediac, emphasis added).

Less than a year after his forces conducted this colossal slaughter, U.S. President George H.W. Bush proclaimed that, “A world once divided into two armed camps now recognizes one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America. And they regard this with no dread. For the world trusts us with power, and the world is right. They trust us to be fair and restrained. They trust us to be on the side of decency. They trust us to do what’s right” (emphasis added).

As Noam Chomsky noted in 1992, reflecting on U.S. efforts to maximize suffering in Vietnam by blocking economic and humanitarian assistance to the nation it had devastated after the Vietnam War ended: “No degree of cruelty is too great for Washington sadists. The educated classes know enough to look the other way.”

“A Prodigious Effort”

Uncle Sam was only getting warmed up building its Iraqi and Muslim Body Counts in early 1991. As Sheldon Richman recently noted on CounterPunch:

“It takes prodigious effort to maintain an air of innocence about San Bernardino and Paris, because no one who claims to be informed can plead ignorance of the long history of U.S. and Western imperialism in the Muslim world. This includes the CIA’s subversion of Iranian democracy in 1953, the U.S. government’s systematic support of compliant autocratic and corrupt Arab monarchies and dictatorships, it’s empowering of Iraqi Shi’ite Muslims, and its unconditional backing of Israel’s brutal anti-Palestinian policies. (The savage 2014 war on Gaza killed many noncombatants.)”

“In the 10 years before the 9/11 attacks the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton bombed Iraq while maintaining an embargo, most especially on equipment for the water and sanitation infrastructure the U.S. Air Force had destroyed during the Gulf War. Half a million children died. This was also when U.S. officials promised, then reneged on the promise, to remove U.S. forces from the Islamic holy sites in Saudi Arabia.”

“From the air Americans routinely kill noncombatants in Syria and Iraq, most recently this week, when ‘at least 36 civilians, including 20 children, in a village in eastern Syria’ were reportedly killed, according to McClatchyDC….Things like this happen all the time. The U.S. attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, was especially egregious against this background of war crimes….The U.S. government has conducted war by remote-controlled drones since 2001 in a variety of places, including Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.”

“A Price Worth Paying”

Five years after “the Highway of Death,” Bill Clinton’s U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright told CBS News’ Leslie Stahl that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S.-led economic sanctions imposed after the first “Persian Gulf War” (a curious term for a one-sided U.S. assault) was a “price…worth paying” for the advancement of inherently noble U.S. goals. “The United States,” Secretary Albright explained three years later, “is good. We try to do our best everywhere.”

In the Streets of Fallujah

In a foreign policy speech he gave to the Chicago Council of Global Affairs on the eve of announcing his candidacy for the U.S. presidency in the fall of 2006, then-U.S. Senator Barack Obama had the audacity to say the following in support of his claim that U.S. citizens supported “victory” in Iraq: “The American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah.” It was a spine-chilling selection of locales. In 2004, the ill-fated city was the site of colossal U.S. war atrocities, crimes including the indiscriminate murder of thousands of civilians, the targeting even of ambulances and hospitals, and the practical leveling of an entire city by the U.S. military in April and November.  By one account:

“The U.S. launched two bursts of ferocious assault on the city, in April and November of 2004… [using] devastating firepower from a distance which minimizes U.S. casualties. In April…military commanders claimed to have precisely targeted…insurgent forces, yet the local hospitals reported that many or most of the casualties were civilians, often women, children, and the elderly… [reflecting an] intention to kill civilians generally…. In November… [U.S.] aerial assault destroyed the only hospital in insurgent territory to ensure that this time no one would be able to document civilian casualties. U.S. forces then went through the city, virtually destroying it. Afterwards, Fallujah looked like the city of Grozny in Chechnya after Putin’s Russian troops had razed it to the ground” (Michael Mann, Incoherent Empire, New York, 2005).

U.S. deployment of radioactive ordnance (depleted uranium) in Fallujah also helped create a subsequent epidemic of infant mortality, birth defects, leukemia, and cancer there. But, of course, Fallujah was just one especially graphic episode in a broader arch-criminal invasion that led to the premature deaths of at least one million Iraqi civilians and left Iraq “a disaster zone on a catastrophic scale hard to match in recent memory” (Tom Engelhardt, Tom Dispatch.com, January 17, 2008).

The Pentagon’s near leveling of the city was consistent with its early computer program name for ordinary Iraqis certain to be killed in the 2003 invasion: “bug-splat” As it turned out, Uncle Sam’s petro-imperial occupation led to the death of at least 1 million Iraqi “bugs” (human beings). According to the respected journalist Nir Rosen in December 2007, “Iraq has been killed…the American occupation has been more disastrous than that of the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in the thirteenth century” (Current History, December 2007).

The Most Extensive Terrorism Campaign of All Time

Chomsky has recently and rightly called Barack Obama’s targeted drone assassination program “the most extensive global terrorism campaign the world has yet seen.” The program “officially is aimed at killing people who the administration believes might someday intend to harm the U.S., and killing anyone else who happens to be nearby.” As Chomsky ads, “It is also a terrorism generating campaign – that is well understood by people in high places. When you murder somebody in a Yemen village, and maybe a couple of other people who are standing there, the chances are pretty high that others will want to take revenge.”

Given the remarkable geographic scope of the cowardly U.S. drone war, Obama’s terrorism campaign has spread jihadism across vaster terrain than any tool or tactic to date. George W. Bush may have Obama beat on total body count in the Muslim world. But Obama takes the prize when it comes to the geographic scope of jihad-fueling U.S. terrorism – and when it comes to instilling a ubiquitous sense of fear of instant mass death from the sky across much of that world.

“Pure Evil”: Nightmares That Remind

It isn’t just about body counts and science fiction-like technologies of mass murder. The natural desire for revenge among many in the Muslim world draws heavily on the hideous and perverse humiliation and torture that racist U.S. forces have carried out in that world. A remarkable teleSur English essay by Vincent Emanuele, a former U.S. Marine veteran of America’s arch-criminal Iraq invasion and occupation, is titled “I Helped Create ISIS.” By Emanuele’s account of his enlistment in an operation that gives him nightmares more than a decade later:

“I think about the hundreds of prisoners we took captive and tortured in makeshift detention facilities staffed by teenagers from Tennessee, New York and Oregon. I never had the misfortune of working in the detention facility, but I remember the stories. I vividly remember the marines telling me about punching, slapping, kicking, elbowing, kneeing and head-butting Iraqis. I remember the tales of sexual torture: forcing Iraqi men to perform sexual acts on each other while marines held knives against their testicles, sometimes sodomizing them with batons.”

“However, before those abominations could take place, those of us in infantry units had the pleasure of rounding up Iraqis during night raids, zip-tying their hands, black-bagging their heads and throwing them in the back of HUMVEEs and trucks while their wives and kids collapsed to their knees and wailed. Sometimes, we would pick them up during the day. Most of the time they wouldn’t resist. Some of them would hold hands while marines would butt-stroke the prisoners in the face. Once they arrived at the detention facility, they would be held for days, weeks, and even months at a time. Their families were never notified. And when they were released, we would drive them from the FOB (Forward Operating Base) to the middle of the desert and release them several miles from their homes.”

“After we cut their zip-ties and took the black bags off their heads, several of our more deranged marines would fire rounds from their AR-15s into their air or ground, scaring the recently released captives. Always for laughs. Most Iraqis would run, still crying from their long ordeal at the detention facility, hoping some level of freedom awaited them on the outside. Who knows how long they survived. After all, no one cared. We do know of one former U.S. prisoner who survived: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.”

“Amazingly, the ability to dehumanize the Iraqi people reached a crescendo after the bullets and explosions concluded, as many marines spent their spare time taking pictures of the dead, often mutilating their corpses for fun or poking their bloated bodies with sticks for some cheap laughs. Because iPhones weren’t available at the time, several marines came to Iraq with digital cameras. Those cameras contain an untold history of the war in Iraq, a history the West hopes the world forgets. That history and those cameras also contain footage of wanton massacres and numerous other war crimes, realities the Iraqis don’t have the pleasure of forgetting.”

“Unfortunately, I could recall countless horrific anecdotes from my time in Iraq. Innocent people were not only routinely rounded-up, tortured and imprisoned, they were also incinerated by the hundreds of thousands, some studies suggest by the millions….Only the Iraqis understand the pure evil that’s been waged on their nation…”

“….The warm and glassy eyes of young Iraqi children perpetually haunt me, as they should. …My nightmares and daily reflections remind me of where ISIS comes from and why, exactly, they hate us. That hate, understandable yet regrettable, will be directed at the West for years and decades to come. How could it be otherwise?” (emphasis added)

“You Haven’t Begun to see…the Things Done to Children”

The award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh told the ACLU last year about the existence of classified Pentagon evidence files containing films of U.S. soldiers sodomizing Iraqi boys in front of their mothers behind the walls of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. “You haven’t begun to see [all the]…evil, horrible things done [by U.S. soldiers] to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run,” Hersh told an audience in Chicago in the summer of 2014.

The United States tries to do its best everywhere.

“Humility and Restraint”

Why Do They Hate Us?! It’s an idiotic and childish question, as moronic as anything “The Donald” ever says. The media doesn’t call Trump him on this one, however, for a very simple reason. It is itself deeply complicit in selling the “American exceptionalist” myth of the United States as a noble and benevolent force in the world and therefore in regularly and systematically denying the savage and criminal behavior of the American Empire abroad.

“We lead the world,” presidential candidate Obama explained eight seven years ago, “in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good…. America is the last, best hope of Earth.” Obama elaborated in his first Inaugural Address. “Our security,” the president said, “emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint”—a fascinating commentary on Fallujah, Hiroshima, the U.S. crucifixion of Southeast Asia, the “Highway of Death” and more.

Within less than half a year of his Inauguration, Obama’s rapidly accumulating record of atrocities in the Muslim world would include the bombing of the Afghan village of Bola Boluk Ninety-three of the dead villagers torn apart by U.S. explosives in Bola Boluk were children. “In a phone call played on a loudspeaker on Wednesday to outraged members of the Afghan Parliament,” the New York Times reported, “the governor of Farah Province…said that as many as 130 civilians had been killed.” According to one Afghan legislator and eyewitness, “the villagers bought two tractor trailers full of pieces of human bodies to his office to prove the casualties that had occurred. Everyone at the governor’s cried, watching that shocking scene.” The administration refused to issue an apology or to acknowledge U.S. responsibility.

Reflecting on such atrocities the following December, an Afghan villager was moved to comment as follows: “Peace prize? He’s a killer…Obama,” the man added, “has only brought war to our country.” The man spoke from the village of Armal, where a crowd of 100 gathered around the bodies of 12 people, one family from a single home. The 12 were killed, witnesses reported, by U.S. Special Forces during a late night raid.

A “Mainstream” Orwellian Triumph

“We are good…We use our power with decency, humility, fairness, and restraint.” Every modern U.S. President (none perhaps with more audacity than Barack Obama) and Secretary of State (including Hillary Clinton) has said and still routinely says things along the same psychotic and nationally narcissistic lines. They do so without facing any more criticism from U.S. “mainstream” media than Soviet rulers faced from Pravda, Izvestia, and Soviet state television when they described their nation and its Eastern European satellites as “great socialist people’s democracies.” U.S. media elites, being members of the properly “educated classes….know enough to look away” from the reality of what Uncle Sam does in and to the world.

No wonder so many US-of-Americans are befuddled by the anger the U.S. evokes around the world (particularly in the Muslim world), darkly clueless when it comes answering the pathetic question “Why Do They Hate Us?” In the US, and indeed across much of the West, “mainstream” media and in the reigning intellectual culture the record of ongoing US criminality is airbrushed out from official history and the mass culture even as it occurs.  It is instantaneously tossed down George Orwell’s “memory hole.” As Harold Pinter noted in his acceptance of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature, dominant Western cultural authorities behave as if US imperial violence does not exist and never has. “Even while it was happening,” Pinter said, it never happened.  It didn’t matter.  It was of no interest.” Pinter was speaking of the Cold War era. Nothing has changed in this regard since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  It’s very much the same today.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something,” Upton Sinclair once noted in an oft-quoted statement, “when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” No doubt, some of the talking and writing media heads enlisted in the project of airbrushing Uncle Sam out of the global criminal record (no small act of distortion and deletion) know very well that “good” Washington’s role in the world is very different than what they report. They also know that telling even small truths about US imperial arrogance and criminality could cost them their jobs and future employment prospects. It is difficult to get a reporter to reveal his or her understanding of the real US role in the world when his or her salary depends on that reporter not revealing that understanding.

Millions of Americans are consequently left in a dangerously childish state of abject ignorance about the actions and evil of “their” nation’s military in the Muslim world and elsewhere and thus about the origins of anti-American Islamic jihad and terror abroad and at home. Whether “the Donald” himself is one of those millions is an open question, though there is reason to suspect that he knows better. The bigger issue is that he and the rest of the presidential candidates of both parties – “two wings of the same bird of prey” (Upton Sinclair, 1904) – will never be corrected by a corporate US war media that no more deserves the title “mainstream” than did Soviet state media in its day.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Congress Passes, Obama Signs CISA Internet Surveillance Law Print
Tuesday, 22 December 2015 10:55

Excerpt: "Late last Friday, the US Congress and President Obama signed into law the CISA Surveillance Law using very underhanded methods."

President Barack Obama at a summit on cybersecurity and consumer protection. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
President Barack Obama at a summit on cybersecurity and consumer protection. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)


Congress Passes, Obama Signs CISA Internet Surveillance Law

By ProtonMail

22 December 15

 

Late last Friday, the US Congress and President Obama signed into law the CISA Surveillance Law using very underhanded methods.

ith it came the loss of numerous protections extremely important to internet privacy. To understand why the CISA surveillance law is bad for email privacy, we will go over some of the main points of the law and how it managed to be passed. Then, we will discuss some of the things we can do about CISA. Despite being law now, there are in fact some ways the CISA surveillance law can be circumvented and online privacy protected.

What is CISA?

CISA stands for Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, which is a deceptive title used by the sponsors of the law to hide its real purpose. From the name, one would assume that CISA is a cybersecurity law, but in reality, it is a surveillance law. In the past week, Congress has dropped all pretense that this is a cybersecurity law by quietly stripping away the privacy protections that used to be in the law, and expanding how the collected information can be used and shared.

CISA creates a massive legal loophole that allows the NSA to circumvent privacy laws. This means US companies can now share ANY information with the US government, bypassing privacy laws without legal consequences. Furthermore, all of this information is automatically shared with the NSA and there are no restrictions on how the NSA can use this data.

How did CISA get passed?

The CISA surveillance law has been hotly debated for over a year in the US. Privacy groups, some corporations, and hundreds of thousands of private citizens have strongly fought against the law. It was deemed by Congress to be too controversial to pass. In order to get CISA approved, the law’s sponsors turned to very underhanded methods.

First, they attached the law to a completely unrelated budget bill, which is a critical bill that must be passed immediately for the US government to continue to function. Then, they waited until Monday, December 14th, 2015 to release the full text of the budget bill, which contains over 2000 pages, and they buried CISA in near the end on page 1728. Finally, they set the vote to happen on Friday, December 18th, 2015.

This ensured that congressional representatives would have less than a week to read the entire bill and there would not be sufficient time for public debate. Furthermore, by sticking it into a critical budget bill, the law’s sponsors virtually guaranteed that it would be passed. Lastly, to minimize the fallout, the vote was scheduled for the last Friday before Christmas, so that by the time president Obama signed it into law, it would be too late to make it into that day’s news. Just like that, a second Patriot Act has become law without any public outcry. This is how democracy is undermined, and we should be outraged.

CISA doesn’t just impact Americans

CISA is an American law, but unfortunately, it doesn’t only impact Americans. If you use Facebook, Dropbox, Google, or WhatsApp, CISA impacts you. With CISA, US corporations can now hand your data over to the NSA without having to worry about the privacy laws which currently protect your data. This doesn’t matter whether you are a US citizen or a EU citizen, if a US corporation has your data, it can be handed over, under the guise of “cybersecurity”. As a Swiss company, ProtonMail is safe from CISA, your data continues to be protected by Switzerland’s very strong privacy laws. However, on a whole, CISA is very bad news for online privacy.

What we can do about CISA

CISA has now been signed into law by President Obama, which means that practically, there is no way to reverse the law. However, the tricks used by the NSA can also work for us. If we can’t change the law, we can still do our best to circumvent it, and fortunately, there are some ways around CISA.

First, because CISA is an American law, it only applies to American companies. Swiss and EU companies are still protected by stronger European privacy laws which cannot be circumvented by CISA. Thus, one way to work around CISA is to avoid the products of US companies. For example, if we all ditch WhatsApp (owned by Facebook) and instead switch to community software such as Signal, Facebook may think twice before publicly opposing CISA but privately supporting it. Switching your email from Gmail to ProtonMail’s private email service based in Switzerland would be another way. If American companies feel the pressure, they will apply pressure to the US government, which is the only way CISA can be repealed.

Secondly, we can take our business to services which deliver end-to-end encryption. For example, end-to-end encrypted email providers such as ProtonMail cannot actually read your messages, so even if we were a US company, we cannot hand over private emails under the CISA surveillance law, or any other law. CISA teaches us that technology, specifically end-to-end encryption, is the best possible defense for privacy. Encryption algorithms offer protection through mathematical law which always holds true, no matter how many laws the US Congress passes using underhanded methods.

Most importantly, we must remember that as the consumer, the choice is ours, and by making the right choices, we can still beat CISA, even when the politicians let us down (again).

If you are interested in getting a free next generation encrypted email account, it is possible to get an account here: https://protonmail.com/invite


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A Bold Bernie Sanders Wins Big in the Third Debate Print
Tuesday, 22 December 2015 09:36

Galindez writes: "Social media and polls are showing that Bernie Sanders scored a major victory in the third Democratic presidential debate. It is unfortunate that due to scheduling that clearly was designed to limit exposure of Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, the debate was on a Saturday night just days before Christmas."

Hillary Clinton looks on as Bernie Sanders speaks during a Democratic presidential debate. (photo: John Locher/AP)
Hillary Clinton looks on as Bernie Sanders speaks during a Democratic presidential debate. (photo: John Locher/AP)


A Bold Bernie Sanders Wins Big in the Third Debate

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

22 December 15

 

ocial media and polls are showing that Bernie Sanders scored a major victory in the third Democratic presidential debate. It is unfortunate that due to scheduling that clearly was designed to limit exposure of Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, the debate was on a Saturday night just days before Christmas.

On social media, where Sanders’ grassroots revolution began, there were more Google searches for Sanders than for any other candidate. His campaign had the most retweeted tweet of the night, according to Twitter. He gained more followers on Twitter than any other candidate, and Facebook said people talked about Sanders more than any other candidate online.

After the debate, Sanders was named the winner by viewers who voted in large-sample polls from Time, PBS, The Wall Street Journal, Slate, Telegraph.co.uk and The Washington Times.

On Time's website, for example, 84 percent of the 27,246 who had taken the poll in the first 90 minutes after the debate said Sanders won.

Access to the debate was also limited by ABC, who claimed it was a space issue. Bernie 2016 TV and other outlets were called non-media outlets and denied access. The filing center was very large and had plenty of empty seats. For example, WMUR, the local ABC affiliate, has 4 rows of seats that were empty for most of the event. ABC national also had dozens of seats that were unused.

I was originally approved for a credential but was told when I went to pick up the credential that non-media had been taken off the list and that Bernie 2016 TV was not media. I informed them that I had applied for the credential as a reporter for RSN and pulled out months of credentials including the past debates. They let me in, but still denied the reporter from Bernie 2016 TV.

Okay, I'll stop ranting - the real story is Bernie got his message out to those who were viewing and not Christmas shopping.

Data Breach

I won't spend much time on this distraction but it is how the debate opened. Bernie apologized to the Clinton campaign and his supporters for the actions of his aides. He did also call out the DNC for blocking his campaign from accessing his campaigns data, which would have been a death sentence if access hadn't been restored after a lawsuit was filed. The staffers were wrong, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz took the opportunity to inflict damage on the Sanders campaign in her overreaching punishment. The only thing that remains is an independent investigation of both the breach last week and the security of all the campaign data for the past year. Other than that, let's move on …

Foreign Policy

Bernie nailed the foreign policy portion of the debate, which was over half the debate. He is right about building a coalition that includes Russia and Iran to defeat ISIS and putting regime change in Syria on the back burner. Bernie is also right to oppose a no-fly zone in Syria. The only fighter planes in Syria are owned by friendly countries and Syria itself. ISIS does not have planes or helicopters. The only result from a no-fly zone could be World War III if we shot down a Russian plane.

Sanders is right that working with Russia and Iran along with our Western allies is the fastest way to defeat ISIS. Assad is a complication that gets in the way of a united front against ISIS.

Bernie successfully showed the difference between his own policies and Clinton's more hawkish ones. In defining the unintended consequences of regime change in places like Iran, Iraq, Libya and Chile, Sanders reassured many that he would not have an interventionist foreign policy that would lead to perpetual war. Hillary Clinton on the other hand exposed views that would lead to other military actions around the world. She defended regime change and called for keeping the overthrow of Assad in Syria as an equal priority to defeating ISIS.

Health Care

It seemed for a while like the whole debate would be spent talking about ISIS. Sanders supporters were complaining on social media, even though I think Bernie held his own and Hillary took a hit on foreign policy. When the conversation finally turned to health care, Hillary defended Obamacare and said she would bring down costs on prescription drugs. Bernie quickly pointed out that premiums and co-pays are too high, and rising, and that too many Americans still don't have health insurance. He called for “Medicare for all,” a single payer system. He said that people would pay thousands less for health care under his plan. For some reason, people just don't understand that while taxes would go up to pay for single payer health care, they would be more than offset by the elimination of premiums and co-pays. If you ended up in the hospital or had outpatient surgery, you would pay nothing under Bernie's plan. I think Bernie needs to do a better job of saying that, but it's true that Bernie's plan is cheaper than everyone else's. Why? It eliminates private insurance companies, who build things like advertising, legal expenses, and profit into their plans. Insurance companies are nothing but middle men that skim off the top and even keep you from getting treatment you need, so they can keep your costs down. Single payer works all over the world, and the countries that have it don't have people asking for private insurance so they can pay more. Secretary Clinton called the rising cost of health care a “glitch” that needs to be worked out. Bernie knows that it is more than a glitch.

Taxes

Of course Bernie's plans will need to be paid for by higher taxes. But that is offset by not having to pay for college and health eare. Mothers would be able to spend more time with their babies instead of rushing back to work. Employers who would not have to pay for health benefits could hire more people or provide better benefits to employees. Young people graduating from college would not be in debt and could buy a home and a better car, spurring economic growth. It really is a no-brainer. Bernie would also shift the tax burden back to the wealthy where it belongs.

Racial Justice

Bernie's commitment to racial justice is unmatched in this race. He is the only candidate talking about reforming the broken and racist criminal justice system. He has pledged that the United States would no longer have the highest number of people in prison by the end of his first term. A free college education and health care and a raise in the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour would improve the lives of all, but a commitment to ending institutional racism, and having a plan to do it, is what separates Sanders from Clinton. I remember Hillary putting the burden on Black Lives Matter when she met with them. She told them they had to make more specific demands. No, Secretary Clinton, they don't have to be specific, that's the job of legislators and government officials. It's your job to listen and come up with solutions.

College Tuition

“Debt-free tuition” is this election's equivalent of “universal health care.” How often do you hear that Hillary and Obama ran on single payer health care in 2008? They didn't; the term universal health care was used to describe plans that were nothing close to health care for all. Now Hillary Clinton has coined the term debt-free college tuition. It is anything but debt-free. It is not free tuition at public universities. It's the Clinton definition for what everyone else can afford. Bernie will take us back to the days when public colleges and universities were just that, public, and didn't cost an arm and a leg. Anyone who thinks it's impossible to have free college education, ask your grandparents how much a state college cost when they were young.

Debates

Most of the debate was spent on foreign policy, making it the second straight foreign policy debate. That is unfortunate since there is only one debate before the early caucuses and primaries. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has prevented the DNC from even considering motions to extend the number of debates. That also is unfortunate. I think the votes would have been there. She is running the DNC like a dictator, and the first regime change that we need is ending her reign as DNC chair.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Edward Snowden: Clinton's Call for a 'Manhattan-Like Project' Is Terrifying Print
Monday, 21 December 2015 14:06

Dickinson writes: "Clinton's Big Brotherish proposal was as troubling as it was vague. And it seemed stubbornly resistant to the reality that America's tech firms have shifted to powerful encryption - precisely in the wake of Snowden's revelations - as a way to reassure consumers around the globe that they are not tools of the American surveillance state."

'Hillary just terrified everyone with an internet connection,' Edward Snowden tweeted during Saturday's Democratic debate. (photo: Frederick Florin/AFP/Getty Images)
'Hillary just terrified everyone with an internet connection,' Edward Snowden tweeted during Saturday's Democratic debate. (photo: Frederick Florin/AFP/Getty Images)


Edward Snowden: Clinton's Call for a 'Manhattan-Like Project' Is Terrifying

By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone

21 December 15

 

Clinton's Big Brotherish proposal at Saturday's Democratic debate was both troubling and vague

he Democratic debate Saturday night featured familiar themes: Bernie Sanders hit Hillary Clinton as beholden to Wall Street, Clinton hit Sanders as soft on gun control, Martin O'Malley had a tough time getting a word in edgewise — as this sad exchange with moderator Martha Raddatz demonstrates:

O'MALLEY: Martha, may I — Martha, may I...

RADDATZ: No, no, not yet, Gov. O'Malley.

O'MALLEY: Can I share this quick story?

RADDATZ: No, not yet, Gov. O'Malley.

O'MALLEY: Oh. All right.

The debate was notable for what was not covered: Just as at the most recent Republican debate, the moderators failed to ask a single question about climate change — as though the historic global accord reached in Paris last week never happened.

The questioning, instead, tilted heavily toward national security and the threat of ISIS. It was on this subject that Clinton issued a troubling call to arms for the nation's tech companies and government to join forces against encrypted private communications.

You might imagine that Clinton — of all people — would be sensitive to the liberty interests of hiding personal communications from prying eyes. This is the public servant, after all, who as secretary of state maintained a private email server — with the benefit to Clinton of being able to vet and delete her own communications before they became a permanent part of the public record.

In this context, it was troubling Saturday evening to hear Clinton's response to a question about the power of high technology to ensure privacy. Blasting "encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into," Clinton said, "I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project — something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners."

The reaction from America's most famous privacy whistleblower was swift:

Clinton's Big Brotherish proposal was as troubling as it was vague. And it seemed stubbornly resistant to the reality that America's tech firms have shifted to powerful encryption — precisely in the wake of Snowden's revelations — as a way to reassure consumers around the globe that they are not tools of the American surveillance state.

More troubling: Clinton readily admitted she really didn't understand her own proposal: "I don't know enough about the technology, Martha, to be able to say what it is," Clinton added.

Tech companies like Apple have resisted calls to place a "backdoor" in encryption technology that would allow governments to peek at private communications, arguing that such a backdoor could equally be exploited by hackers and render the privacy protections useless.

"Maybe the backdoor is the wrong door, and I understand what Apple and others are saying about that," Clinton said, insisting nonetheless that a door was necessary: "I know that law enforcement needs the tools to keep us safe."

Clinton's remarks earned her the mockery of one of the top disrupters in Silicon Valley, who found her call for a door that's not a backdoor nonsensical: Marc Andreessen, the founder of Netscape and now a top venture capitalist taunted on Twitter, "Also we can create magical ponies who burp ice cream while we're at it."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Black Lives Do Not Matter Print
Monday, 21 December 2015 13:57

Larson writes: "Black lives do not matter. If they did, the expression would not be necessary."

A Black Lives Matter rally. (photo: PA)
A Black Lives Matter rally. (photo: PA)


Black Lives Do Not Matter

By Charles R. Larson, CounterPunch

21 December 15

 

lack lives do not matter. If they did, the expression would not be necessary. They never have, beginning with the origins of our country in slavery. Africans were slaves because white people did not consider them human. The Constitution more or less supported that. After the Civil War, black people were no longer technically regarded as slaves but they were largely treated the same way. Jim Crow assured that—and most aspects of their lives (in both the South and the North) were designed to keep them subservient: education, housing, jobs, and justice especially.

Mostly, the policy continues until today. “Black Is Beautiful” helped improve the dignity of African-Americans but not the way white people looked at them. Proof? First, Barak Obama’s struggle to escape racism (mostly covert) since his first inauguration. “You lie!” a congressman shouts out during one of Obama’s state-of-the-union addresses. Would that have happened if Obama were white? Fifty plus attempts to try to eliminate Obamacare. And then there’s the mantra of the Republican Party: Our goal is to make certain that Obama becomes a one-term president. Conservatives would rather destroy the country than give Obama one iota of credit for anything. They are determined that his place in history will be minor. They have worked full-time at assuring that.

Brown lives do not matter much either: Native Americans and Hispanics, the latter in the current shouting match among Republican presidential candidates to cater to the dying white majority in the country. Mostly, that means kowtowing to poorly educated white males with few job prospects who have seen their lot threatened for close to forty years. The rise of feminism in the 1970s frightened the hell out of them but these white guys always assumed that as long as prejudice against African Americans remained as it had been in the past, they would be chosen before more qualified black job candidates. Finally, the educational gap—especially between African-American women and lower class white males—became so obvious that these white men began to lose out. They’re frightened to death about the future when white people will be a minority in the United States. Their privilege—based solely on the color of their skin—is about to run out.

This largely explains the fanatical Republican presidential candidates, building on their belief that black lives do not matter. Hispanics were added to their outcry at the beginning of the campaign saga. Then—when the opportunity of terrorism arrived—they extended their outrage to Muslims. How ironic that Republican presidential candidates have embraced the ISIS playbook: frighten the hell out of people so they’ll cheer your racist screed. Who will be added to the list next? Asians, for undermining our economy? Jews again, since so many liberal commentators are Jewish? Don’t even mention gays. So racism and gender bias are alive and well in the United States as they have always been.

The country is in a terrible mess. Huge problems face us as a nation, and our elected representatives are largely ignoring them. Donald Trump has assured his followers that he’ll fix everything once he’s elected, but he hasn’t provided a clue as to how he’d do this. Democrats are frightened to death that racism is threatening to take us back to concentration camps, closed borders, and worse. And the shrinking number of poorly educated and poorly skilled white guys believe that all they need to do is attack Planned Parenthood centers and the country’s problems will disappear. Their slightly more informed representatives in Congress believe that the problems of the country’s increasing population and rapidly graying elders can be addressed with reduced funding. Some of them scream for another war, but one they won’t want to fund by raising taxes or reinstating the draft because that might jeopardize the future of their own sons and daughters.

Black lives do not matter but neither does much else, as long as the status quo can be retained and white guys (of all economic and educational levels) can continue to control virtually everything. Their denial of climate change is a fear that they will lose the ability to control the world they have kept in their grasp for so many years. As Alberto Moravia wrote in Which Tribe Do You Belong To? (1974),

“There is no greater suffering for man to feel than his cultural foundations giving way beneath him.” Moravia was writing about another context and another time. But, changing the word “suffering” in his remark to “fear,” it is possible to understand the context of white American men and the suffering they have caused people of other colors, ethnicities, genders, and religions.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 Next > End >>

Page 2214 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN