|
Enough Freak Show: This Is Life and Death |
 |
|
Monday, 22 May 2017 08:37 |
|
Rosenblum writes: "Statecraft is no job for unhinged narcissists who don't read. At a time when so many citizens make snap judgments based on news snippets, we need a president and lawmakers we can trust, respect and believe."
Donald Trump. (photo: USA Today)
Enough Freak Show: This Is Life and Death
By Mort Rosenblum, Mort Rosenblum's Website
22 May 17
 hen a democracy falls overnight in a pool of blood, hapless victims have no choice but to curse their fate. If a coup d'etat happens slowly in plain view, free people who let it happen have only themselves to blame.
It is tempting to block out the unthinkable, but British journalist Andrew Marr has it right: "We are either players in open, democratic societies, all playing a part in their ultimate direction or we are deserters."
And there is Orwell: "A people that elect corrupt politicians are not victims, but accomplices."
Donald Trump is way beyond dangerous. Whether he is Hitler, Bozo the clown or simply a spoiled brat, his reckless and ruthless manner, detached from truth or principle, shames Americans. And it imperils 7.5 billion others on the planet.
The French, like the Dutch, just saved Europe and themselves from bullying, narrowly focused fascists. Back home, where the stakes are planetary, our demagogue runs rampant, with Congress and the Court behind him.
Most Americans see the danger, but too few are yet motivated to act. We have very little time before Trump does lasting damage. If he is impeached, the process is long and divisive. And something far worse is possible.
Volke Ulrich, who wrote the book on Hitler, plays down parallels to Trump. But if the Fuhrer taught us anything, the German historian told The Atlantic, "it's how swiftly democracy can be dismantled, when political institutions fail and civil society is too weak to compensate. The results can be catastrophic."
Style is bad enough. Trump's humiliation of James Comey, who swayed his narrow victory, was calculated cruelty. Later, his threatening tweet aimed at keeping him silent was worthy of a Mafia goon, not an American president.
But consider substance. He wants to subjugate the FBI the way Putin runs Russia's FSB, with handpicked sycophants and no oversight. Election tampering is just the surface issue. What, exactly, are his links to our hostile adversary?
Trump defends his right to pass Israeli anti-terror secrets to Russia. True or not, that is calamitous. If we entrusted him with the right to do that, we can revoke it. He is a term-contract civil servant hired to drive our bus. If he heads us toward a cliff, we have to grab the wheel.
Yet as each outrage surpasses the previous, we wait, inured, for the next. We've worn out that frog-in-heating-water metaphor, and still nothing happens. That cannot be our new normalcy: a creep's creeping coup.
This is about principle not party. Neither side owns all blame. Elections are 18 months away, and we need to raise hell now. Then each of us can rally behind candidates who are loyal to a nation, not just people who bankroll them.
---
To get started, step back and consider the big picture. Interpretations may vary, but facts don't come with alternatives.
During four recent months in America, I was astonished at how many people pick and choose bits of convenient reality as if they were ordering from a Chinese menu. He's our president, others say. Give him a chance.
Now from an ocean away I see a wider world watch in stunned disbelief. How can Americans be "first" - in anything - if they horrify friends and supply enemies with propaganda material beyond their wildest dreams?
When Marr wrote that line in 2009, Barack Obama had just taken on the shambles George Bush left behind: huge debt from a needless $6 trillion war; millions of destitute refugees; swelling ranks of terrorists bent on vengeance.
Climate scientists banged on alarms. China and Russia loomed large. North Korea and Iran hurried to perfect nuclear warheads. Terror attacks burgeoned. More than ever before, we needed leaders to forge a common front.
Obama made mistakes, as all presidents do, but also restored prosperity, fought climate chaos, initiated healthcare and won back global respect. Rather than build on that to do better, a new president and Congress go for the throat.
Mitch McConnell thwarted Obama at every turn and hijacked a Supreme Court seat. Now his GOP posse runs roughshod, making complex problems worse. As we focus on some egregious acts, countless others slip by unnoticed.
To understand what we face, we have to stop thinking like our computers, in cognitive shortcuts. The nuanced detail is crucial. All-encompassing labels mislead us. Shallow thinking faults "the mainstream media." That's horseshit.
Solid reporting is easy to find. Despite pathetic exceptions, our news organizations accurately portray a president run amok. His "fake news" and stonewalled access only underscore his delusions. Nixon tried a cover-up, too.
The Web allows us to do our own reporting, connecting us to unbiased experts who don't guess about places they can't pronounce or find on a map.
Plenty of things explain how Trump fooled voters in November, from the Democrats' disarray to a showman's flimflam that resonated among people in pain. As usual, less than half of those eligible exercised their right to vote.
But now? Legal fig leafs don't mask blatant nepotism, gargantuan conflicts of interest and influence peddling. Trump flaunts his contempt for citizens by hiding tax returns that would shed light on who he really is.
---
Beyond Trump's failings at home, he poses dangers abroad as clear and present as I've seen in five decades of reporting. He scorns human rights, embraces despots, and sells us out in secret. Speaking loudly while carrying a small stick, he splashes fuel on an overheated world.
He chest-bumps Kim Jung-un, who is loonier than he is, giving him exactly the spotlight he craves. If pushed to a corner, Kim is capable of sending a nuclear-tipped suicide note to Guam. Surely, we haven't forgotten Pearl Harbor.
He drops a monster bomb on Afghanistan that kills few but inspires an incalculable number of zealots to join global terrorist ranks. He wants to widen an unwinnable war against the Taliban, which did not start out as our enemy.
In Syria, moist-eyed at footage of gassed children, Trump attacked an airbase that Russians quickly restocked instead of hitting Bashar al-Assad where it hurts -- at his palace compound, for instance. So the war crimes continue.
The irony is hard to miss. Trump, moved by daughter Ivanka, lamented those kids' plight and yet his policy toward millions of refugees, along with drastic foreign aid cuts, causes agonizing death by starvation and disease.
Then there is China, which defies Trump's comic-book worldview. It is neither friend nor enemy, and it is not likely to be pushed around. Subtract 320 million people, America's population; you've still got a billion Chinese.
Here is where headline news and summaries lead us astray. "Long reads," in the new parlance, are crucial. Beyond what and where, they tell us why - and what's next. But even more, books. Two examples make the point.
John Pomfret left the Washington Post to spend five years writing The Beautiful Country and the Middle Kingdom. In 600 pages that seem to turn themselves, he takes U.S.-China history from 1776 to today's breaking news.
Early last century, rival leaders Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai Shek both sought U.S. help against Japan in Manchuria. America backed the Japanese, which did not turn out well. Mao took a hard left toward Russia. Chiang, with neither a peace accord with Mao or U.S. arms to fight him, withdrew to Taiwan.
The short version is that a meeting in Paris a long time ago skewed immeasurably the shape of today's world. We cannot protect our future if we don't understand the past.
The Mirror Test gets deep into Iraq and Afghanistan. John Kael Weston, a State Department military liaison, slams clueless Washington visitors who hung back in safety and left with misconceptions they came with.
Weston found that only six of 100 senators, he found, bothered to read the classified Iraq briefing book. He said he never had the guts to ask a blunt question: "If they had not read the NIE before voting the Iraq War authorization, well, why not? Why. The. Hell. Not."
His book paints the big picture - far beyond Iraq -- in a talk with the Iraqi civilian who tried to keep the lid on Fallujah: "You can spend millions on drones and send in more Marines, but they are blind to what Iraqis have here," the man said, pointing to his head. "Terrorism begins in heads, not in streets."
Statecraft is no job for unhinged narcissists who don't read. At a time when so many citizens make snap judgments based on news snippets, we need a president and lawmakers we can trust, respect and believe.
No one can be first in today's world, but America could again lead by example to confront common crises that spawn mass migration and terrorism and wreak havoc to a global ecosystem that supports human survival.
At the very least, we can save our democracy by ridding ourselves of a man who would be king.
 |
|
The Paper Company Threatening Ancient Boreal Forests - and Activists and Journalists |
|
|
Monday, 22 May 2017 08:26 |
|
Beavan writes: "Should I even write this article? Or should I sit back and hope someone else with better access to legal funds will tell you? Maybe the New York Times will tell you. Oh wait. The Times is printed on paper from Resolute. Well then, the Washington Post. Oh, hell. They get paper from Resolute, too. The LA Times? Yup. Them, too."
Resolute is mounting an aggressive $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace along with individual activists for publicizing their unsustainable forestry practices. (photo: rkankaro/iStock)
The Paper Company Threatening Ancient Boreal Forests - and Activists and Journalists
By Colin Beavan, YES! Magazine
22 May 17
Resolute Forest Products provides the paper for the nation’s biggest newspapers and publishers. So it’s up to independent media to speak out.
 uppose, as a writer and climate justice activist, I want to ask you to boycott one of the world’s largest paper companies—Resolute Forest Products—because it is unsustainably cutting trees in the formerly untouched, ancient boreal forests of Canada. Suppose I also wanted to tell you that Resolute practices threaten the survival of the endangered woodland caribou and that the company has lost or had suspended some of its FSC certifications as a result.
Of course, I should tell you those things. That’s my job as a writer, right? And you should probably know. That way you can participate in your democracy: Put pressure on the company to change its behavior, ask your elected representatives to step in, and other actions.
But suppose too that Resolute is right now mounting an aggressive $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace along with individual activists for publicizing the very same unsustainable forestry practices I want to write about. Suppose I also know that Resolute has a history of mounting specious lawsuits against those who speak out against them that can potentially bankrupt advocacy organizations and individuals by forcing them to mount costly legal defenses.
So suppose I and other writers like me are scared to tell you what you need to know to participate in our democracy and politicians what they need to know to legislate effectively. Suppose it silences us.
With a daughter to support, what should I do? Should I even write this article? Or should I sit back and hope someone else with better access to legal funds will tell you? Maybe the New York Times will tell you. Oh wait. The Times is printed on paper from Resolute. Well then, the Washington Post. Oh, hell. They get paper from Resolute, too. The LA Times? Yup. Them, too.
So it turns out, because of the complex economic relationships between big media and industry, it is often up to small nonprofit magazines and websites and book writers and independent publishers and advocacy organizations to sound the alarm when a big company is doing wrong. But scaring all of us from keeping the public informed is exactly what Resolute is trying to do with its huge lawsuit against Greenpeace.
Here is the background, according to a Greenpeace report on the suit:
Greenpeace has been speaking up and raising awareness of Resolute’s controversial forestry practices with the public and buyers of Resolute’s products for years. … Instead of working collaboratively with Greenpeace and other stakeholders to find lasting solutions for the forest, workers, and local communities, Resolute has filed a $300 million Canadian dollar (CAD) lawsuit against Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, Stand.earth, and individual activists …
With these lawsuits, and with its public attacks against other prominent environmental organizations, Resolute is attempting to silence legitimate public concerns, all the while ignoring scientific recommendations for the health of the forest and thus the longevity of the forest products industry.
… Ultimately Resolute’s meritless lawsuits against Greenpeace could impact individuals and groups across civil society that seek to make positive changes by making it too expensive and risky to engage in free speech, advocacy, informed expert opinions, and even research.”
In other words, if the suit against Greenpeace is successful, it could be personally dangerous for me to tell you the things I’ve told you in this article. In this way, it could be dangerous for other journalists and advocacy organizations to tell you other things you need to know.
That is why I am standing with Greenpeace’s new campaign, launched this week, to encourage newspaper and book publishing companies—whose very businesses depend on our right to free speech—to work with Resolute to find more sustainable solutions for the forest instead of pursuing lawsuits aimed at silencing their critics. In addition to the newspapers I’ve mentioned, Greenpeace has found that Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and Hachette, among others, all buy and use book-grade paper from Resolute. That includes from a mill in Canada’s boreal forest.
But how we can help?
1. Tweet and share this article on Facebook
According to Amy Moas, a Greenpeace strategist named in the suit, Resolute operates in relative quiet because it is not a household name. So sharing this article, as well as others that show what Resolute is doing both to the forest and in their attempts to silence activists, could help put pressure on them.
2. Communicate with publishers and newspaper companies
Social media and direct emails are effective ways to do this. Moas suggests something like:
“Thank you, [publisher], for being a beacon for freedom of speech in our society. The work you do for the free circulation of ideas is invaluable. But it has now been exposed that [you] are buying paper from a company that is posing a huge threat to the freedom of speech and to forests. Please talk to Greenpeace and take action. Continue to be a champion for free speech and stand by your environmental promises. Urge Resolute to stop attacking free speech and embrace sustainable solutions for the forest.”
3. Sign the new Greenpeace petition
In a few weeks, Greenpeace will be displaying the number of petition signers, as a show of people power, at the Book Expo America in New York City. It is the largest gathering of the publishing industry in North America. Greenpeace will also be handing over a book that contains the name of every petition signer to each publisher. This is meant to be a physical reminder that publishers’ paper sourcing choices are important to their readers and global community.
Will you do those things? I intend to. And then maybe in the future people like you and me and other writers and advocates might feel safer writing articles that stand up to big industry.
|
|
|
Nation Favors Travel Ban on Person Who Has Recently Visited Muslim Country |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 21 May 2017 13:35 |
|
Borowitz writes: "In a notable shift of public opinion, a substantial majority of Americans now favor a travel ban on a person who has recently visited a Muslim country, a new poll shows."
Trump in Saudi Arabia. (photo: Getty Images)
Nation Favors Travel Ban on Person Who Has Recently Visited Muslim Country
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
21 May 17
 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 a notable shift of public opinion, a substantial majority of Americans now favor a travel ban on a person who has recently visited a Muslim country, a new poll shows.
According to the poll, if such a person travelled to a country in the Middle East, for example, he should be subjected to extreme vetting before he is allowed to return to the United States.
If, in the course of such vetting, the person is found to have recently engaged in activities to undermine or even destroy American democracy in collaboration with a foreign enemy, he should be barred forever from entering the U.S., poll respondents agreed.
In sizable numbers, those polled “strongly agreed” with the statement, “Any American who travels to a Muslim country with the intention of selling them deadly weapons should not be allowed to return.”
Finally, a broad majority of poll respondents said that if such a person were to remain outside the borders of the U.S. forever, they would “sleep better at night.”
|
|
Russia Meeting Revelation Could Trigger Obstruction Investigation |
|
|
Sunday, 21 May 2017 13:32 |
|
Meyer writes: "The new special counsel investigation into possible collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia is just getting started - and it could take years to resolve."
President Donald Trump listens during a meeting with the National Association of Manufacturers, Friday, March 31, 2017, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
ALSO SEE: McMaster Does Not Deny That Trump Discussed Comey With Russian Officials
Russia Meeting Revelation Could Trigger Obstruction Investigation
By Josh Meyer, Politico
21 May 17
President Donald Trump’s Oval Office boast to Russian officials will almost certainly prompt a more immediate legal development.
 he new special counsel investigation into possible collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia is just getting started — and it could take years to resolve.
But Trump’s Oval Office boast to Russian officials May 10 about why he fired FBI Director James Comey will almost certainly trigger a more immediate, and potentially perilous, legal development: an obstruction of justice investigation into whether the president intentionally engaged in a cover-up that warrants the filing of criminal charges, current and former Justice Department officials say.
Trump summarily terminated Comey one day earlier, just as it appeared that his FBI investigators were ramping up their investigation into the president’s associates — and possibly Trump himself. A day later, the president told Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Ambassador Sergey Kislyak: “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job.”
“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off. … I’m not under investigation,” Trump added, according to an official White House document summarizing the meeting, as reported Friday by The New York Times.
The Times said that the White House document containing Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office, and then “circulated as the official account of the meeting.”
Renato Mariotti, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago, said special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of FBI investigators will home in on Trump’s comments to the Russians, in part because there is reportedly an official White House document about it, and also because it appears to reference Trump’s possible intent in firing Comey.
To prove obstruction of justice, authorities must show that someone intentionally, or “corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law” in an investigation or other proceeding.
Mariotti, who prosecuted many federal obstruction of justice cases, said that according to Justice Department practice and protocol, FBI agents would be expected to move quickly to secure the White House document and any related forensic evidence that exists, including original notes and other work product used to create it.
“There is no question that the president’s comments as reported will be examined by the special counsel and his team, to determine whether or not the president had a corrupt intent in his dealings with Comey,” Mariotti said. “There is no such thing as a magic telescope into someone’s mind. So the very best evidence of a person’s intent are their own words and actions.”
One veteran Justice Department investigator said the summary account of the meeting “sounds like obstruction of justice to me.”
“It is the definition of obstruction: an effort to impede or prevent an investigation,” the investigator said.
The FBI had no comment on whether it expects to review Trump’s reported comments for possible consideration as obstruction of justice.
"For national security reasons, we do not confirm or deny the authenticity of allegedly leaked classified documents," said Michael Short, a National Security Council spokesman.
According to Justice Department practice and protocol, FBI agents would be expected to move quickly to secure any related forensic evidence that exists related to the Russia meeting, including original notes and other work product used to create the official document, the Justice Department official and a former prosecutor said.
Authorities also would seek to determine whether recordings exist of the meeting, especially since Trump himself suggested in a tweet that his Oval Office meetings with Comey were taped.
And agents would attempt to interview anyone else who was in the room, "to see if they can corroborate the notes,” and gain as much insight as possible into what Trump meant — and whether his firing of Comey was in any way aimed at derailing the investigation, Mariotti and the Justice official said.
“Mr. Mueller is very meticulous, and we are dealing with an investigation involving the president of the United States,” Mariotti said. “So you can expect Mr. Mueller and his team to be very careful and to piece together complete and fulsome picture of the events.”
In addition to staff and administration officials, agents would want to interview Trump himself, most likely after all evidence was gathered and reviewed.
“At that point, there would be a look at whether this was a concrete effort to avoid, inhibit or interfere with the investigation,” the Justice Department official said, adding that the FBI wouldn’t shy away from investigating, and interviewing, Trump just because he is the president.
“The essence of our criminal justice system is that nobody is above the law,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the official is not authorized to speak for the Justice Department. “The fact that it allegedly occurred in the White House, and may have involved the president of the United States, is ultimately irrelevant in the analysis, and in how we do our jobs.”
The veteran Justice Department investigator, and Mariotti, said it would be virtually impossible for federal investigators to sidestep such an investigation given the publicity surrounding the president’s alleged remarks, and the evidence generated by them. They also predicted that Mueller, the by-the-book former FBI director, would insist on it.
The White House did not dispute the Times account, which capped a week of stunning revelations about Comey’s firing and the Trump-Russia investigation, and caused an uproar on Capitol Hill.
Instead, press secretary Sean Spicer sought to downplay its significance, saying in a statement that by investigating Trump, Comey had put unnecessary pressure on the president’s ability to conduct diplomacy with Russia on matters such as Syria, Ukraine and the Islamic State.
“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer said in a statement. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it.”
One government official briefed on the meeting also defended Trump, saying he was merely seeking to gain leverage over the Russian diplomats, the Times said.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing, either in his campaign’s relations with Russia, or in his firing of Comey. And he has complained bitterly that accusations of Russian influence in the campaign are false and politically motivated by Democrats trying to undermine the legitimacy of his election victory.
The Justice Department official and several former prosecutors said that it doesn’t matter what Spicer — or The New York Times — think Trump meant by the remarks because the mere fact that he made them has created the possibility that he tried to intentionally derail the Trump-Russia investigation.
That’s especially the case because Trump’s May 10 comments were just the latest of several reported instances in which he appeared to pressure Comey about the investigation before ultimately firing him.
That includes reports about how Trump summoned Comey to meetings in which he asked the FBI director to swear loyalty to him, to provide details of whether he was under investigation and to back off a probe into his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn.
And the president himself told NBC News that his firing of Comey was linked to the investigation: “When I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.”
Ultimately, authorities would seek to obtain any material related to those events that could shed light on actions or comments by Trump that could be construed as obstruction, including detailed notes taken by Comey about each of his interactions with the president, Mariotti and the Justice Department official said. An FBI agent’s contemporaneous notes are traditionally accepted as evidence in a court proceeding.
For the past week, Democrats and even a few Republicans have cited those reports as evidence that Trump may have tried to obstruct justice by firing Comey. On Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel and gave him a broad mandate to investigate possible collusion during and after the election, as well as any potential interference in the FBI investigation itself.
“Any one of these would be enough to suggest that Trump meant to derail the investigation,” said Elizabeth Goitein, a former Justice Department trial attorney and congressional counsel who co-directs the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. “Taken together, they add up to a powerful case that the president of the United States attempted to obstruct justice. “
But when talking to the Russians, if Trump did indeed make reference to how Comey’s firing alleviated the “great pressure” he felt due to the investigation, it ups the ante significantly because it goes to Trump’s intent, according to Goitein, Mariotti and the Justice official.
It’s “the latest and most damning evidence to emerge regarding his intent in firing Comey,” Goitein said. “There will be tremendous pressure for special counsel Robert Mueller to examine this as part of his criminal investigation.”
If investigators ultimately determined that by pressuring and ultimately firing Comey, Trump “felt that the investigation would not move forward, or would be sidelined or delayed, then it’s possible to argue that that is the intent needed for obstruction” charges, said the Justice Department official.
To this day, legal scholars remain divided over whether a president can be charged with a crime.
“It’s a point that continues to be debated by legal scholars,” Mariotti said. “You bring a civil lawsuit. We can’t be sure about whether we can indict a president while he is in office. That issue is as much a political issue as it is a legal one.”
|
|
shameless plug: 
