RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Greatest Show on Earth: How Billions of Words,Tweets, Insults, and Polls Blot Out Reality in Campaign 2016 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6396"><span class="small">Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Wednesday, 10 August 2016 13:57

Engelhardt writes: "Look on the bright side: the Republican and Democratic conventions are in the rearview mirror and a mere three months of endless yakking are left until Election Day."

Donald Trump. (photo: AP)
Donald Trump. (photo: AP)


The Greatest Show on Earth: How Billions of Words, Tweets, Insults, and Polls Blot Out Reality in Campaign 2016

By Tom Engelhardt, Tom Dispatch

10 August 16

 

ep, it finally happened. In early May, after a long, long run, the elephants of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus were ushered into retirement in Florida where they will finish their days aiding cancer research. The Greatest Show on Earth was done with its pachyderms.  The same might be said about the Republicans after Donald Trump’s version of a GOP convention. Many of them had also been sent, far less gracefully than those circus elephants, into a kind of enforced retirement (without even cancer research as an excuse).  Their former party remained in the none-too-gentle hands of the eternally aggrieved Trump, while the Democrats were left to happily chant “USA!  USA!,” march a barking retired four-star general and a former CIA director on stage to invoke the indispensable “greatness” of America, and otherwise exhibit the kind of super-patriotism and worship of the military usually associated with... no question about it... the GOP (whose delegates instead spent their time chanting lock her up!”).

And that’s just to take the tiniest of peeks at a passing moment in what continues to be, without the slightest doubt, the Greatest Show on Earth in 2016.

My small suggestion: don’t even try to think your way through all this. It’s the media equivalent of entering King Minos’s labyrinth. You’ll never get out. I’m talking about -- what else? -- the phenomenon we still call an “election campaign,” though it bears remarkably little resemblance to anything Americans might once have bestowed that label on.

Still, look on the bright side: the Republican and Democratic conventions are in the rearview mirror and a mere three months of endless yakking are left until Election Day. 

In the last year, untold billions of words have been expended on this “election” and the outsized histories, flaws, and baggage the two personalities now running for president bring with them.  Has there ever been this sort of coverage -- close to a year of it already -- hour after hour, day after day, night after night? Has the New York Times ever featured stories about the same candidate and his cronies, two at a time, on its front page daily the way it’s recently been highlighting the antics of The Donald? Have there ever been so many “experts” of every stripe jawing away about a single subject on cable TV from the crack of dawn to the witching hour?  Has there ever been such a mass of pundits churning out opinions by the hour, or so many polls about the American people’s electoral desires steamrollering each other from dawn to dusk? And, of course, those polls are then covered, discussed, and analyzed endlessly. Years ago, Jonathan Schell suggested that we no longer had an election, but (thanks to those polls) “serial elections.”  He wrote that back in the Neolithic Age and we’ve come an awful long way since then. There are now websites, after all, that seem to do little more than produce mega-polls from all the polls spewing out.

And don’t forget the completely self-referential nature of this “campaign.” If ever there was an event that was about itself and focused only on itself, this is it. Donald Trump, for instance, has taken possession of Twitter and his furious -- in every sense, since he’s the thinnest-skinned candidate ever -- tweets rapidly pile up, are absorbed into “news” articles about the campaign that are, in turn, tweeted out for The Donald to potentially tweet about in a Möbius strip of blather.

What You Can’t Blame Donald Trump For

And yet, despite all the words expended and polls stumbling over each other to illuminate next to nothing, can’t you feel that there’s something unsaid, something unpolled, something missing?

As the previous world of American politics melts and the electoral seas continue to rise, those of us in the coastal outlands of domestic politics find ourselves, like so many climate refugees, fleeing the tides of spectacle, insult, propaganda, and the rest. We’re talking about a phenomenon that’s engulfing us. We’re drowning in a sea of words and images called “Election 2016.” We have no more accurate name for it, no real way to step back and describe the waters we’re drowning in. And if you expect me to tell you what to call it, think again. I’m drowning, too.

You can blame Donald Trump for many things in this bizarre season of political theater, but don’t blame him for the phenomenon itself. He may have been made for this moment with his uncanny knack for turning himself into a never-ending news cycle of one and scarfing up billions of dollars of free publicity, but he was a Johnny-come-lately to the process itself. After all, he wasn’t one of the Supreme Court justices who, in their 2010 Citizens United decision, green-lighted the flooding of American politics with the dollars of the ultra-wealthy in the name of free speech and in amounts that boggle the imagination (even as that same court has gone ever easier on the definition of political “corruption”). As a certified tightwad, Trump wasn’t the one who made it possible to more or less directly purchase a range of politicians and so ensure that we would have our first 1% elections. Nor was he the one who made American politics a perfect arena for a rogue billionaire with enough money (and chutzpah) to buy himself.

It’s true that no political figure has ever had The Donald’s TV sense. Still, before he was even a gleam in his own presidential eye, the owners of cable news and other TV outlets had already grasped that an election season extending from here to Hell might morph into a cornucopia of profits. He wasn’t the one who realized that such an ever-expanding campaign season would not only bring in billions of dollars in political ads (thank you, again, Supreme Court for helping to loose super PACs on the world), but billions more from advertisers for prime spots in the ongoing spectacle itself. He wasn’t the one who realized that a cable news channel with a limited staff could put every ounce of energy, every talking head around, into such an election campaign, and glue eyeballs in remarkable ways, solving endless problems for a year or more. This was all apparent by the 2012 election, as debates spread across the calendar, ad money poured in, and the yakking never stopped. Donald Trump didn’t create this version of an eternal reality show. He’s just become its temporary host and Hillary Clinton, his quick-to-learn apprentice.

And yet be certain of one thing: neither those Supreme Court justices, nor the owners of TV outlets, nor the pundits, politicians, pollsters, and the rest of the crew knew what exactly they were creating. Think of them as the American equivalent of the blind men and the elephant (and my apologies if I can’t keep pachyderms out of this piece).

In this riot of confusion that passes for an election, with one candidate who’s a walking Ponzi scheme and the other who (with her husband) has shamelessly pocketed staggering millions of dollars from the financial and tech sectors, what are we to make of “our” strange new world? Certainly, this is no longer just an election campaign. It’s more like a way of life and, despite all its debates (that now garner National Football League-sized audiences), it’s also the tao of confusion.

Missing in Action This Election Season

Let’s start with this: The spectacle of our moment is so overwhelming, dominating every screen of our lives and focused on just two outsized individuals in a country of 300 million-plus on a planet of billions, that it blocks our view of reality. Whatever this “election” may be, it blots out much of the rest of the world.  As far as I can see, the only story sure to break through it is when someone picks up that assault rifle, revs up that truck, gets his hands on that machete, builds that bomb, declares loyalty to ISIS (whatever his disturbed thoughts may have been 30 seconds earlier), and slaughters as many people as he can in the U.S. or Europe. (Far grimmer, and more repetitive slaughters in Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, and other such places have no similar value and are generally ignored.)

Of course, such slaughters, when they do break through the election frenzy, only feed the growth of the campaign. It’s a reasonable suspicion, though, that somewhere at the heart of Election 2016 is a deepening sense of fear about American life that seems to exhibit itself front and center only in relation to one of the lesser dangers (Islamic terrorism) of life in this country. Much as this election campaign offers a strife-riven playing field for two, it also seems to minimize the actual strife and danger in our world by focusing so totally on ISIS and its lone wolf admirers.  It might, in that sense, be considered a strange propaganda exercise in the limits of reality.

Let’s take, for instance, America’s wars.  Yes, the decision to invade Iraq has been discussed (and criticized) during the campaign and the urge of the two remaining candidates and everyone else previously involved to defeat and destroy the Islamic State is little short of overwhelming.  In addition, Trump at least has pointed to the lack of any military victories in all these years and the disaster of Clinton’s interventionist urge in Libya, among other things.  In addition, in an obvious exercise of super-patriotic fervor of the sort that once would have been strange in this country and now has become second nature, both conventions trotted out retired generals and national security officials to lecture the American public like so many rabid drill sergeants.  Then there were the usual rites, especially at the Democratic convention, dedicated to the temple of the “fallen” in our wars, and endless obeisance to the “warriors” and the U.S. military generally -- as well as the prolonged Trumpian controversy over the family of one dead Muslim-American Marine.  One of the two candidates has made a habit of praising to the heavens “the world’s greatest military” (and you know just which one she means) while swearing fealty to our generals and admirals; the other has decried that military as a “disaster” area, a “depleted” force “in horrible shape.”  For both, however, this adds up to the same thing: yet more money and support for that force.

Here’s the strange thing, though.  Largely missing in action in campaign 2016 are the actual wars being fought by the U.S. military or any serious assessment of, or real debate or discussion about, how they’ve been going or what the national security state has or hasn’t accomplished in these years.  Almost a decade and a half after the invasion of Afghanistan, the longest war in American history is still underway with no end in sight and it's going badly, as American air power has once again been let loose in that country and Afghan government forces continue to lose ground to the Taliban.  Think of it as the war that time forgot in this election campaign, even though its failed generals are trotted out amid hosannas of praise to tell us what to do in the future and who to vote for. Meanwhile, a new, open-ended campaign of bombing has been launched in Libya, this time against ISIS adherents.  The last time around left that country a basket case.  What’s this one likely to do?

Such questions are largely missing in action in campaign speeches, debates, and discussions; nor is the real war and massive destruction in Iraq or Syria a subject of any genuine interest; nor what it’s meant for the “world’s greatest military” to unleash its air power from Afghanistan to Libya, send out its drones on assassination missions from Pakistan to Somalia, launch special operations raids across the Greater Middle East and Africa, occupy two countries, and have nothing to show for it but the spread of ever more viral and brutal terror movements and the collapse or near-collapse of many of the states in which it’s fought its wars. 

At the moment, such results just lead to “debates” over how much further to build up American forces, how much more money to pour into them, how much freer the generals should be to act in the usual repetitive fashion, and how much more fervently we should worship those “warriors” as our saviors.  Back in 2009, Leon Panetta, then head of the CIA, talked up America’s drone assassination campaign in Pakistan as “the only game in town” when it came to stopping al-Qaeda.  Seven years later, you could say that in Washington the only game in town is failure.

Similarly, the U.S. taxpayer pours nearly $70 billion annually into the 16 major and various minor outfits in its vast “intelligence” apparatus, and yet, as with the recent coup in Turkey, the U.S. intelligence community seldom seems to have a clue about what’s going on.

Failed intelligence and failed wars in an increasingly failed world is a formula for anxiety and even fear.  But all of this has been absorbed into and deflected by the unparalleled bread-and-circus spectacle of Election 2016, which has become a kind of addictive habit for “the people.”  Even fear has been transformed into another form of entertainment.  In the process, the electorate has been turned into so many spectators, playing their small parts in a demobilizing show of the first order.

And speaking about realities that went MIA, you wouldn’t know it from Election 2016, but much of the U.S. was sweltering under a “heat dome” the week of the Democratic convention.  It wasn’t a phrase that had previously been in popular use and yet almost the whole country was living through record or near-record summer temperatures in a year in which, globally, each of the first six months had broken all previous heat records (as, in fact, had the last eight months of 2015).  Even pre-heat dome conditions in the lower 48 had been setting records for warmth (and don’t even ask about Alaska).  It might almost look like there was a pattern here.

Unfortunately, as the world careens toward “an environment never experienced before,” according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of the two parties to the American spectacle continues to insist that climate change is a hoax.  Its politicians are almost uniformly in thrall to Big Energy, and its presidential candidate tops the charts when it comes to climate denialism.  ("The concept of global warming," he's claimed, "was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.") Meanwhile, the other party, the one theoretically promoting much-needed responses to climate change, wasn't even willing to highlight the subject in prime time on any of the last three days of its convention.

In other words, the deepest, most unnerving realities of our world are, in essence, missing in action in election 2016.

You want to be afraid? Be afraid of that!

The Shrinking Election Phenomenon

So you tell me: What is this spectacle of ours?  Certainly, as a show it catches many of our fears, sweeping them up in its whirlwind and then burying them in unreality.  It can rouse audiences to a fever pitch and seems to act like a Rorschach test in which you read whatever you’re inclined to see into its most recent developments.  Think of it, in a sense, as an anti-election campaign.  In its presence, there’s no way to sort out the issues that face this country or its citizens in a world in which the personalities on stage grow ever larger and more bizarre, while what Americans have any say over is shrinking fast.

So much of American “democracy” and so many of the funds that we pony up to govern ourselves now go into strengthening the power of essentially anti-democratic structures: a military with a budget larger than that of the next seven or eight countries combined and the rest of a national security state of a size unimaginable in the pre-9/11 era.  Each is now deeply embedded in Washington and at least as grotesque in its bloat as the election campaign itself.  We’re talking about structures that have remarkably little to do with self-governance or We the People (even though it’s constantly drummed into our heads that they are there to protect us, the people).  In these years, even as they have proved capable of winning next to nothing and detecting little, they've grown ever larger, more imperial, and powerful, becoming essentially the post-Constitutional fourth branch of government to which the other three branches pay obeisance.

No matter.  We’re all under the heat dome now and when, on November 8th, tens of millions of us troop to the polls, who knows what we’re really doing anymore, except of course paving the way for the next super-spectacle of our political age, Election 2020. Count on it: speculation about the candidates will begin in the media within days after the results of this one are in. And it’s a guarantee: there will be nothing like it. It will dazzle, entrance, amaze. It’s going to be... the Greatest Show on Earth. It will cause billions of dollars to change hands.  It will electrify, shock, amuse, entertain, appall, and...

I leave it to you to finish that sentence, while I head off to check out the latest on The Donald and Hillary.  (Include a reference to elephants and you’ll get extra credit!)



Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Exxon's Latest Campaign to Stymie Climate Action Print
Wednesday, 10 August 2016 13:29

Negin writes: "Recent press accounts report that ExxonMobil is now actively promoting a carbon tax. If true, that's big news. It would mean that, after nearly 20 years of blocking action on climate change, the world's biggest energy company has finally come to its senses. Is this anything more than a PR ploy?"

Rex Tillerson is the chairman, president and CEO of ExxonMobil. (photo: Reuters)
Rex Tillerson is the chairman, president and CEO of ExxonMobil. (photo: Reuters)


Exxon's Latest Campaign to Stymie Climate Action

By Elliott Negin, EcoWatch

10 August 16

 

ecent press accounts report that ExxonMobil is now actively promoting a carbon tax. If true, that's big news. It would mean that, after nearly 20 years of blocking action on climate change, the world's biggest energy company has finally come to its senses.

But wait a minute. If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. So one might well ask: Is this anything more than a PR ploy?

Let's take a closer look.

As I reported earlier this year, ExxonMobil has paid lip service to the idea of a carbon tax since 2009 but, all the while, has continued to fund federal lawmakers who resolutely oppose it. In March 2015, for example, the Senate voted 58 to 42 to pass a budget amendment prohibiting a carbon tax. Thirty of the 40 senators who had received ExxonMobil campaign contributions since 2010 voted in favor of the prohibition. Meanwhile, in March 2013, 156 House members cosponsored a nonbinding resolution stating that "a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses and is not in the best interest of the United States." Ninety-three percent of the cosponsors were funded by—you guessed it—ExxonMobil.

Ok, but that was then and things can change, right? After all, last December, Ken Cohen, the company's outgoing vice president of public and government affairs, blogged about ExxonMobil's strong support for a carbon tax, noting that the company has been holding "countless private briefings with members of Congress on carbon tax policy options."

So how have the company's friends on Capitol Hill responded?

In June, the House passed a resolution stating "a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy" on a 237 to 163 vote. Eighty-five percent of the House members who voted for the resolution received ExxonMobil political donations since 2013; 82 of them are documented climate science deniers. By contrast, only 26 of the representatives who voted against the resolution—a measly 16 percent—received ExxonMobil money.

The numbers are unambiguous: When it comes to a carbon tax, there's no escaping the fact that ExxonMobil still funds legislators who don't favor it and, by the same token, doesn't support many who do.

Disingenuous Origins

In his December blog post, Cohen traced ExxonMobil's support for a carbon tax back to January 2009, when company CEO Rex Tillerson endorsed it in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC Cohen, however, neglected to explain the context for this pronounced break with ExxonMobil's long-held position against any policy that would curb carbon emissions: Tillerson was trying to derail momentum on Capitol Hill for a different approach.

Back then, Congress was seriously considering instituting a cap-and-trade system, modeled after the George H. W. Bush administration's successful plan to reduce acid rain, which would have set a cap on overall carbon emissions and established a regulated marketplace where polluters could buy and sell emissions allowances. The less carbon they emitted, the less they would pay.

The European Union had instituted such a system in 2005 and, although there were disagreements over the details, the idea of a U.S. cap-and-trade system had the support of a number of environmental organizations, including the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council and more than two dozen companies, including oil giants BP America, ConocoPhillips and Shell. Perhaps most important, the plan had the backing of President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, who then controlled both houses of Congress.

Tillerson was having none of it. "A carbon tax strikes us as a more direct, transparent and effective approach" than a cap-and-trade system, he said in that January 2009 speech. "It is the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions, from investments made by companies to fuel and product choices made by consumers." Any carbon tax, he added, should be revenue-neutral, meaning it should be offset by reductions in income and corporate taxes.

But there was a major obstacle in the way of Tillerson's preferred solution: It had no political support. When California Rep. Pete Stark proposed a carbon tax just the year before, it attracted only three cosponsors.

Tillerson, who surely knew Congress wasn't about to pass a carbon tax, publicly conceded it faced long odds. "Right now, any talk of imposing new taxes would rattle the markets and individuals," he told E&E News, a trade publication, the same day he spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center. "... But probably later this year, I think they're going to get around to want to further investigate what their alternatives are."

As it turned out, the House narrowly passed a cap-and-trade bill on a 219 to 212 vote in June 2009. In the Senate, however, it was a different story. The legislation never made it out of committee for a number of complicated reasons, but the fact that fossil fuel interests had plenty of friends in the upper chamber—many of them longtime recipients of ExxonMobil political donations—no doubt played a significant role. The bottom line? ExxonMobil ultimately got what it wanted by plugging a carbon tax: gridlock.

Beyond the Rhetoric

There has been some speculation about what motivated ExxonMobil to recently ramp up its pro-carbon tax rhetoric. First, with multiple investigations underway by state attorneys general of the company for misleading its shareholders and the general public about climate risks, it likely feels the need to polish its tarnished image. Second, the company knows that last December's historic UN climate meeting in Paris, where 195 countries committed to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, means that it will be harder to maintain the status quo. Third, if and when Congress does seriously consider a carbon tax, ExxonMobil wants to position itself to influence the debate. And finally, ExxonMobil would likely benefit more than its competitors from a carbon tax, because such a tax would favor the cleaner-burning natural gas over coal and ExxonMobil has the largest natural gas reserves of any U.S. company.

These are all plausible reasons, except for one thing: The evidence suggests that the company is still doing what it can to obstruct policies to combat climate change.

Last fall, for example, California Rep. Ted Lieu—who has not received any ExxonMobil campaign contributions—met with the company's lobbyists in what was presumably one of the "countless private briefings" Cohen cited in his December blog. Lieu asked the lobbyists what they would do if he drafted carbon tax legislation. They replied that "they would take a look at it," Lieu told InsideClimate News. "They didn't say they wouldn't support it and they didn't say they would," he added. "It's clear that they are not going around championing their position. If they actually believe this internally, then they ought to do so in a much louder way than just quietly sticking it on a website."

In the Senate, meanwhile, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii have introduced a carbon tax bill, the "American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act." Has ExxonMobil endorsed it or lobbied on its behalf? According to Whitehouse and Schatz, no.

"Regarding ExxonMobil's alleged seven years of support for a carbon fee, we've seen no meaningful evidence of that," the senators said in a letter they sent to the company just yesterday. "None of the top executives that make up ExxonMobil's management team has expressed interest in meeting with any of us to discuss the Whitehouse-Schatz proposal or any carbon fee legislation."

Conversely, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, a climate science denier, explained to Fox News host Steve Doocy in December 2012 that he told ExxonMobil lobbyists a carbon tax was a "bad idea." "I sat down with the Exxon folks a couple of months ago," Upton said, "and let it be known that this is not a proposal that ... is going to be coming through in the House." Nevertheless, ExxonMobil donated more to Upton during the current election cycle than it did in either the 2012 or 2014 cycles.

Besides its political donations and lobbying, the company is still spending millions of dollars a year on think tanks, advocacy groups and trade associations that dispute climate science and disparage climate policies, including a carbon tax. Just last month, ExxonMobil was a lead sponsor of the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) annual conference, which featured Oren Cass, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a self-described free-market think tank ExxonMobil has been funding since 1998. According to one conference participant, Cass "absolutely eviscerated the case for conservatives adopting a carbon tax." Conference organizers also provided ALEC state legislator members with a sample resolution against the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to curb power plant carbon emissions.

ExxonMobil doesn't just rely on paid surrogates, however, to spread disinformation and block government action. Company executives may sing the praises of a carbon tax, but they still find time to misrepresent climate science and question the necessity of taking any action at all.

Climate Science Denial Starts at the Top

In March 2013—the same month 146 ExxonMobil-funded House members cosponsored a resolution against a carbon tax—Tillerson appeared on on PBS's Charlie Rose, ostensibly to promote one. The CEO told Rose he preferred a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade system, but then he doubted whether scientists knew enough to warrant one. "The facts remain there are uncertainties around climate change, why it's changing [and] what the principal drivers of climate change are," Tillerson claimed, repudiating the consensus among climate scientists worldwide. He also falsely claimed there is no scientific evidence of a link between global warming and extreme weather events.

Two years later, at ExxonMobil's 2015 annual shareholder meeting, Tillerson again argued that climate models are not accurate enough to justify a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels. "What if everything we do," he asked, "it turns out our models are lousy and we don't get the effects we predict?" He recommended continuing to burn fossil fuels and adapting to whatever happens, be it sea level rise or crop failures. "Mankind has this enormous capacity to deal with adversity," he said "and those solutions will present themselves as the realities become clear."

Contrary to Tillerson's assertions, climate models have proven to be extremely accurate. A March 2013 peer-reviewed paper in the journal Nature Geoscience, for example, found that the models accurately predicted the rise in global temperatures over the previous 15 years to within a few hundredths of a degree. No matter. When given the chance to set the record straight at this year's shareholder meeting in late May, Tillerson would not back down. "My view on the competencies of the models," he said, "has really not changed."

Perhaps the most revealing statement demonstrating the depth of ExxonMobil's support for a carbon tax, however, came the day before the House resolution vote in June—the one where nearly 90 percent of the ExxonMobil-funded House members casting a ballot voted yes, a carbon tax would hurt the U.S. economy. A Huffington Post reporter contacted ExxonMobil Media Relations Manager Alan Jeffers to find out what the company had to say. Given the company's supposedly heightened interest in persuading Congress to pass a carbon tax, one would have expected Jeffers to register the company's opposition. Certainly he would explain why the resolution was misguided and tell House members to vote no. It was what some would call a teachable moment.

So how did Jeffers respond?

"We're not commenting on the resolution."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Will Jeffrey Sterling's Trumped-Up Espionage Conviction Be a Death Sentence? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 10 August 2016 11:32

Kiriakou writes: "CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling is in trouble. He's not in trouble with prison authorities or with the government, at least not any new trouble. His health is failing, and prison officials are doing nothing about it."

Jeffery Sterling the CIA Officer Sentenced to 3.5 Years for Leaking Info to NY Times Reporter James Risen. (photo: AP)
Jeffery Sterling the CIA Officer Sentenced to 3.5 Years for Leaking Info to NY Times Reporter James Risen. (photo: AP)


Will Jeffrey Sterling's Trumped-Up Espionage Conviction Be a Death Sentence?

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

10 August 16

 

IA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling is in trouble. He’s not in trouble with prison authorities or with the government, at least not any new trouble. His health is failing, and prison officials are doing nothing about it. Jeffrey has collapsed twice in the past few weeks. He has a history of atrial fibrillation, an irregular heartbeat, and is a candidate for a pacemaker. He has repeatedly sought medical attention in the prison’s medical unit. And each time he’s been brushed off.

Jeffrey’s wife, Holly Sterling, has written Warden Deborah Deneham at the Federal Correctional Institution at Englewood, Colorado, asking that Jeffrey receive the medical treatment necessary. Her pleas have been ignored. Here’s what Holly had to say:

Dear Warden,

I am contacting you on behalf of my husband, Mr. Jeffrey Sterling, 38338-044. On June 21, 2016, Mr. Sterling reported to the Health Services Department with the following symptoms: chest pain, profuse sweating, and shortness of breath. Mr. Sterling reported the staff performed an EKG, which showed elevated levels, with signs of a blockage. The staff informed Mr. Sterling the blockage was "probably due to electrode placement." The staff told Mr. Sterling they felt it was not a cardiac issue and possibly due to being dehydrated, although Mr. Sterling repeatedly told them he drinks plenty of liquids daily. The staff also discussed Mr. Sterling's age and the predisposition of health issues for African Americans. The staff informed Mr. Sterling that they would make a request for a levels check but did not inform him of the date when the blood panel would be conducted.

There are several concerns regarding the medical attention provided to Mr. Sterling. First, Mr. Sterling has a history of Atrial Fibrillation, which is in his medical chart. Upon entry into the facility on June 16, 2015, a baseline EKG was to be taken. This was never done. Second, if the EKG showed signs of a blockage, but staff stated it was due to electrode placement, does it not warrant that another EKG be administered properly to obtain an accurate reading? How can staff conclude that Mr. Sterling does not indeed have a blocked artery? Third, why was a blood panel not taken at the time of the incident?

On July 25, 2016, Mr. Sterling sent a note to the Health Services Department reporting chest pain, shortness of breath, and lightheadedness. Mr. Sterling was instructed that he had a laboratory appointment on July 27, 2016 at 6 am. At that appointment, Mr. Sterling's blood was taken and he was informed he would be contacted only if there was an issue. Why was a blood panel taken only after Mr. Sterling informed the medical staff of a second instance of potential cardiac issues, and more than a month after the initial reported health issue? Shouldn't Mr. Sterling be provided the results of his blood panel test regardless of whether or not the staff believes "there is an issue"?

Given that Mr. Sterling has now had two episodes, a new EKG needs to be administered correctly by properly trained medical personnel. The results of the EKG and blood panel should be shown and discussed with Mr. Sterling upon completion.

As per the January 26, 2012, Admission & Orientation Handbook, Mr. Sterling has the right to the following:

  • The patient has the right to communicate with those responsible for his care to receive from them adequate information concerning the nature and extent of his medical problems, the planned course of treatment, and the prognosis. In addition, he has a right to expect adequate instruction in self-care in the interim between visits to the hospital.

  • The inmate has the right to file grievances pertaining to medical care with no repercussions.

Mr. Sterling's goal is simply to get the medical care he needs and to which he is entitled. His hope is that this email will result in that occurring. However, if Mr. Sterling's medical needs are not addressed after receipt of this email, his legal team will be consulted for further assistance in this matter and if necessary, Mr. Sterling will file a formal grievance.

Mrs. Holly Sterling

Sadly, Jeffrey Sterling’s situation is not unique. When I was incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution at Loretto, Pennsylvania, for blowing the whistle on the CIA’s torture program, the medical unit gave me the wrong diabetes medication, causing me to pass out one morning due to dangerously low blood sugar, and they misdiagnosed a broken finger and denied me treatment, leaving my pinkie mangled and misshapen. Several inmates at Loretto died while I was there, due solely to medical malpractice.

Officers of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) staff medical units in federal prisons. Through my years at the CIA I had periodic occasion to work with several USPHS employees. I found them to be good at their jobs, well-informed, and hard-working. I realized only when I got to prison that only the dregs of the USPHS are sent there. It’s a common practice in the federal government: don’t fire anybody for incompetence. Just transfer them. That’s how federal prison medical units are staffed.

But there’s a more immediate problem here. Jeffrey Sterling is in trouble. We have to do something to help him. In my experience at Loretto, publicity was the only thing that forced the bureaucracy to move.

Please write Warden Deborah Deneham at FCI Englewood, 9595 West Quincy Avenue, Littleton, CO 80123 or call at 303-763-4300 and demand that Jeffrey Sterling receive the necessary medical treatment. It may just save his life.



John Kiriakou is an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies. He is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

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
 
FOCUS: 5 Ways to Make Sure Trump Loses Print
Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:22

Moore writes: "Let’s stop the early celebrating and the gloating over Trump’s Bad Week. No premature end zone dances. If you are serious about this election, and if you are smart enough to still take Donald Trump seriously, then here’s 5 things to do – four for you, and one for Hillary."

Michael Moore. (photo: Where to Invade Next)
Michael Moore. (photo: Where to Invade Next)


5 Ways to Make Sure Trump Loses

By Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Website

10 August 16

 

ver the past few days, a number of polls have come out showing Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump nationally by double digits, including in blue collar states like Michigan (10%) and Pennsylvania (11%). If you are a Clinton supporter and have felt a sense of relief when you saw these numbers, your shoulders suddenly relaxing and an audible “phew” coming from your mouth, if you got excited that your belief system was now reassured that there was no chance your fellow Americans will vote for a narcissistic misogynist, then you just became part of the problem — and why Donald J. Trump could actually win on November 8th.

Please do not think for a second this election is over or in the bag. There are three long months to go. If you think that all we have to do is just let Trump keep shooting himself in the head – that “Trump will beat Trump” and the rest of us just have to sit back and watch with glee – well, you are playing with fire. And you’re looking for a way to get out of doing any work. Clearly you’ve forgotten this election is not about whether there are more people “for” Hillary or Trump. Of course there are more people for Hillary! She will lead in the opinion polls from now until Election Day.

AND IT DOESN’T MATTER.

Because this is not a popularity contest decided by polls (or in this year’s edition, a contest over who you dislike the least). As I’ve said, if people could vote from their sofa via their Xbox or remote control, Hillary would win in a landslide. But this election is only about who SHOWS UP to the VOTING BOOTH on November 8th (or to early voting or by absentee ballot). The election this year is not being held as usual on the first Tuesday of November; it’s happening in the second week of the month, so if you live in the top half of the country, that means a greater chance for snow or icy rain — and that means a lower turnout. A lower turnout helps Trump.

This election is ONLY about who gets who out to vote, who’s got the most rabid supporters, the kind of candidate who inspires people to get out of bed at 5am on Election Day because a Wall needs to built! Muslims are killing us! Women are taking over! USA! USA! Make My Penis Great Again! Hillary is the Devil! America First! Fetus First! First in Line at the Polls!

So instead of feeling better this week because of the new polls (BTW, only one of these polls is of “likely voters” – the Reuters Poll – and in that one, Hillary leads by only 4 points), or regaling over Trump’s insanity (so insane, he raised $82 million last month in mostly $10-$20 contributions, stunning the Clinton campaign, because Bernie never had a grassroots month anywhere near that), I would like to suggest a different response. I’d like to ask those who love Hillary to hold off on the victory party ’til the wee hours of November 9th. Please, can we all agree that now is NOT the time to do this: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/25/434585015/not-over-til-its-over-runners-early-celebration-costs-her-the-bronze

Let’s stop the early celebrating and the gloating over Trump’s Bad Week. No premature end zone dances. If you are serious about this election, and if you are smart enough to still take Donald Trump seriously, then here’s 5 things to do – four for you, and one for Hillary:

  1. You Are Responsible for Getting 50 People to the Polls November 8th. Start making your list now. Create this list on your smart phone of the people you will personally make sure show up to the polls on November 8th. Enter their email addresses and cell phone numbers. Call it your “November 8th Project.” Add a name to it every single day between now and November 8th until you have 50 people – 50 names in 90 days. Focus on nonvoters. Then, on November 7th and 8th, call, text and/or email every one of them and remind them to vote. Offer them a ride. Offer them lunch. Offer to watch the kids. Offer to mow their lawn. Plan a get-together or a party for everyone after going to vote. You must remind even those people who you think don’t need reminding. This election isn’t about you voting — it’s about you getting 50 others to vote.

  2. From Today Until November 8th, You Are in the French Resistance. Imagine what it was like to be in the French underground while the Germans invaded France. The only possible way to win was an unrelenting, round-the-clock commitment to defeat the Nazis. There was no time for one of those 3-hour French dinners. They did not take vacations. They did not sleep in. They did not have time for “playdates.” The Germans were coming! The Germans were there! Well, friends, our fascist (Drumpf!) is coming! That’s the mind-set you need to be in. For the next three months, the kids have to get themselves to soccer! Work on your marriage in December! There’s no time for hot yoga! No one in the French Resistance ever said “I can’t blow up that Nazi train today ’cause I feel like I might be coming down with a cold!”

  3. You Must Be Supportive of the Depressed Voter. So many people have given up on our system and that’s because the system has given up on them. They know it’s all bullshit: politics, politicians, elections. The middle class in tatters, the American Dream a nightmare for the 47 million living in poverty. Get this straight: HALF of America is planning NOT to vote November 8th. Hillary’s approval rating is at 36%. CNN said it last night: No one running for office with an approval rating of 36% has ever been elected president (Trump’s is at 30%). Even in these newer polls, 60% still say that Hillary is “untrustworthy to be president.” Disillusioned young people stop me every day to tell me they’re not voting (or they’re voting 3rd Party). This is a problem, folks. Stop ignoring it. You need to listen to them. Chastising them, shaming them, will not work. Acknowledging to them that they have a point, that Hillary Clinton is maybe not the best candidate, and then promising them that you will join them on November 9th in a political revolution that will demand Clinton enact her platform, that might go a long way to getting them to vote. They don’t have to change their opinion about Hillary. They just have to reluctantly vote for her and be allowed to feel very bad about doing it – and very good that we will fight on their side after the election.

  4. Hillary Must Slyly Stick Trump with a Comedy Shiv During the Debates. Bill Maher and I will help Hillary with this (Hill, call us!). I’m sure Amy Schumer and Chris Rock would chip in, too. Clinton actually has a good sense of humor, but keeps it mostly hidden (here she is back in the ’90s, sparring with a Republican leader of Congress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XsSydPOgCc). Trump has very thin skin. If she can slide the perfect line of satirical ridicule just under that thin skin of his, he will implode. On live TV. And that, my friends, will be the moment it’s over for him. A complete mental meltdown on a stage without his cheering man-fans in the room. BOOM!

  5. I Hereby Appoint You Precinct Captain in Your Neighborhood, in Your School, and at Your Place of Work. Yes, you. Tell them Michael Moore personally named you. Not because I have any authority to do so. Just because I said so. And you said so. Please, friends, do not depend entirely on the “Democratic Party” to pull this off in November. It is often, depending on where you live, an apparatus of numskulls, hacks and former high school student council rejects. Quick, name the local chair of the Dems in your county. They are not of the people. If we depend just on them, we lose. We usually do. Obama had a brilliant campaign team, was a beloved candidate, and that’s why he won. Hillary’s campaign lost 22 states to a 74-year old socialist who had neither a comb nor 50 bucks in his pocket — and was unknown to everyone except me and some hippies in Vermont! Hahahaha! Here’s a tweet this week from one of Hillary’s “top advisers”, the chair of the “Campaign for American Progress”, just to give you a clue as to the brain trust surrounding her:

So we can’t just depend on them alone to stop Trump. That’s why I’ve decided to appoint myself, as of this moment, chair of the “Shadow Campaign to Defeat Donald J. Trump” (or, in short, “The Resistance”) — and I’m appointing each and every one of you as my Precinct Captains in the areas where you live, work and go to college. From this moment forward you will organize the block you live on, or the town or neighborhood you live in, or your dorm, your office, or your place of worship. If asked, just identify yourself as the “Local Head of the Defeat Trump Coalition.” If others want to be the “Head” or say they are the “Head,” just share the title with them. Then appoint more Precinct Captains. Don’t hold meetings. Do actions. Use humor. Conduct flash mobs. Be a disruptor. Think creatively and subversively. Have fun. Defeat Trump.

Because, you see, we have no choice. We’re in the Trump Resistance.

Yours in revolution and future playdates,

Michael Moore

P.S. Still feeling giddy about all the bad news surrounding Trump this week? Here’s another bucket of cold water: Trump can actually lose Florida, Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico — and STILL WIN! All he has to do is carry the rust belt “Brexit States” of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Hillary lost three of these four in the primaries. Nothing can be taken for granted. Once more: This is all about who shows up November 8th — not who’s ahead in the popularity polls right now. On the morning of the Michigan Primary, Hillary was ahead of Bernie in a WJBK/TV2-Detroit poll by 22 points. Twelve hours later, she lost. Leave your bubble now! You are a Precinct Captain! You have work to do!

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
If Hillary Clinton Seeks (or Accepts) an Endorsement From Henry Kissinger, She's Lost My Vote Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Wednesday, 10 August 2016 08:27

Pierce writes: "Kissinger is a bridge too far. He is responsible for more unnecessary deaths than any official of a putative Western democracy since the days when Lord John Russell was starving the Irish, if not the days when President Andy Jackson was inaugurating the genocide of the Cherokee. He should be coughing his life away as an inmate at The Hague."

Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Getty Images)
Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Getty Images)


If Hillary Clinton Seeks (or Accepts) an Endorsement From Henry Kissinger, She's Lost My Vote

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

10 August 16

 

n Monday, there was a fascinating piece in Tiger Beat On The Potomac in which some unnamed people in the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton whispered to a reporter that the campaign was sending out feelers to what the story laughingly referred to as the foreign-policy "elders" of the Republican Party. The list of foreign policy "elders," according to TBOTP's sources, included the following examples of the Republican Undead:

Henry Kissinger: war criminal and abettor of abattoirs around the world.

James Baker: political survivor, mastermind of the Great Florida Ratfck of 2000, Bush family retainer.

George Schultz: potential Iran-Contra stool pigeon.

Condoleezza Rice: National Security Advisor during Worst National Security Disaster in U.S. History.

Also:

Stephen Hadley, a national security adviser to then-President George W. Bush who also is considered an elder, dodged when asked to answer "yes or no" on Thursday whether Trump has the temperament to be president. Hadley's response, however, offered a glimpse into the dilemma facing Republicans wondering whether to back Trump: By casting him off, do you undermine your chance to shape the party's future? "It's a very difficult position that a lot of Republicans are in and it sounds easy so a number of my Republican friends have said, 'He does not have the temperament, and therefore, I endorse Hillary Clinton.' And that is a legitimate approach," he said during a POLITICO Playbook Breakfast. "The problem with that approach is that Republicans will then say, 'Well, you know, you really weren't a Republican anyway' and shelve them. And you then deal yourself out of the debate within the Republican Party about what does the Republican Party stand for."

Hadley also once said this:

What the president has said is that we do not torture. And he said that while we need to be aggressive in the war against terror, we also have to do it in a way that complies with U.S. law, with U.S. treaty obligations and with the Constitution.

This, as we have come to learn, is a fairly demonstrable non-fact.

Now, the story is intriguing if looked at in a certain way. Reading the tea leaves laid out by anonymous bureaucrats to reporters is always cut-rate Kremlinology, but let's do it anyway. I can't imagine at this point that there aren't a number of somebodies within the HRC campaign already planning what to do once the election is over and HRC wins. (That seems fairly prudent to me.) What if there is some internal tug-of-war breaking out between the people who want President HRC to govern from "the middle," which I consider a fairly mythical place at the moment, and some of the people who want her to genuinely be an agent of change on every front? (Let's guess that the latter group is made up of younger people.) Certainly, that's a fascinating political story on which to keep a weather eye for the rest of the campaign, and it can't be easy for the candidate herself to navigate its course, either.

However…

I live in the bluest damn state there is east of Hawaii. My senators are Senator Professor Warren and Edward Markey. Less than a third of my fellow citizens are Republicans. (Granted, one of them is the governor, but let's move on.) HRC could not lose the Commonwealth (God save it!) even if she drank a polyjuice potion and campaigned here transformed into Alex Rodriguez. So I can say this full in the knowledge that what I say will not have the slightest effect on the outcome of the presidential election. But it is not negotiable.

If Hillary Clinton actively seeks, or publicly accepts, the endorsement of Henry Kissinger, I will vote for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld on November 8. (Jill Stein, you might've been a contender, but going off to Red Square to talk about Vladimir Putin and human rights? Being an honored guest of a Russian propaganda channel? I don't think so.) Kissinger is a bridge too far. He is responsible for more unnecessary deaths than any official of a putative Western democracy since the days when Lord John Russell was starving the Irish, if not the days when President Andy Jackson was inaugurating the genocide of the Cherokee. He should be coughing his life away as an inmate at The Hague, not whispering in the ears of a putatively progressive Democratic presidential candidate. I can tolerate (somewhat) the notion of her reaching out to the rest of the wax museum there, but Kissinger is a monster too far. He is my line in the sand. I can choose who I endorse to lead my country, a blessing that Henry Kissinger worked his whole career to deny to too many people.

Plus, I really do want Bill Weld to be vice-president.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 Next > End >>

Page 1941 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