Can we say, disgusting?
Of course we can.
It's a beautiful day in our body bag...
(apologies to Fred Rogers)
Either Barak Obama is being kept totally ignorant, or he is not really
our Prince of Peace. Peace loving Princes do not, I repeat, do not
allow people to be shoved into body bags and Tasered.
Darth Vader, on the other hand...
Am I the only one who sees a bit of Darth Vader in Barak Obama?
Carl Jarvis
On 5/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Excerpt: "A large group of South Asian migrants and refugees say they were
> placed in 'body bags' and subjected to the use of tasers by Immigration and
> Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers as they were deported from the United
> States, the Guardian reported Friday."
>
> A holding facility for children detained at the US-Mexico border in
> Nogales,
> Arizona. (photo: Ross D. Franklin/Pool Photo)
>
>
> Obama's Government Is Violently Tasering, 'Body Bagging' Refugees
> By teleSUR
> 28 May 16
>
> "When I came to the US I had a dream... Now, I don't even want to say the
> word America."
> A large group of South Asian migrants and refugees say they were placed in
> "body bags" and subjected to the use of tasers by Immigration and Customs
> Enforcement (ICE) officers as they were deported from the United States,
> the
> Guardian reported Friday.
> In early April, 85 Bangladeshis, Nepalis and Indians that had failed to
> gain
> asylum or otherwise secure legal status were sent back home on a charter
> flight from Mesa, Arizona.
> According to detainees that were interviewed, in order to place a detainee
> in what they called body bags, a group of ICE officers would pin them to
> the
> ground, tightly wrap them in a security blanket and fasten them with Velcro
> belts. Once the deportee was restrained in such a manner, they were carried
> on to the plane.
> "That's something that made us really afraid," said Suhel Ahmed, a detainee
> who told The Guardian about his experience witnessing these incidents. "And
> me and a lot of fellow detainees started crying and begging [the ICE
> officers] not to do the same thing to us - we told them, 'we'll walk,
> 'we'll
> walk' [on to the plane]."
> Ahmed also recounted being in fear at witnessing people being tasered.
> "My body was shaking [in fear]," said Ahmed, describing how he watched
> people being shocked.
> In an email to the Guardian, ICE officials admitted that ICE officers had
> used "minimal force" during boarding after "approximately a dozen of the
> detainees refused to comply with officers' instructions and became
> combative." In such an instance, they said, restraint blankets may also be
> used.
> However, ICE officers denied the taser allegations.
> But despite the ICE's claims that only minimal force was used, all 85
> detainees were handcuffed throughout their journey, which sometimes lasted
> over 30 hours and resulted in them suffering minor injuries. Some detainees
> were even left bleeding.
> These allegations, if true, are extremely troubling and must be
> investigated," Paromita Shah, the associate director of the National
> Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild told The Guardian.
> Fahd Ahmed, the executive director of Drum, a New York-based immigrants'
> rights organization said to the Guardian: "Trump talks about building walls
> or banning Muslims while the Obama administration is preventing refugees,
> Muslims and others from seeking safety here, violently abusing such
> migrants, and then colluding with other governments to deport them back to
> their deaths."
> Back in Bangladesh, where many of the migrants and refugees were from, fear
> for their lives and live in hiding.
> "When I came to the US I had a dream - this is the country of peace and
> justice and human rights," said Khaled Miah, 36, describing why he had
> embarked on the dangerous journey. "Now, I don't even want to say the word,
> 'America'."
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> A holding facility for children detained at the US-Mexico border in
> Nogales,
> Arizona. (photo: Ross D. Franklin/Pool Photo)
> http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Obamas-Govt-Is-Violently-Tasering-Body
> -Bagging-Refugees---20160528-0005.htmlhttp://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/
> Obamas-Govt-Is-Violently-Tasering-Body-Bagging-Refugees---20160528-0005.html
> Obama's Government Is Violently Tasering, 'Body Bagging' Refugees
> By teleSUR
> 28 May 16
> "When I came to the US I had a dream... Now, I don't even want to say the
> word America."
> large group of South Asian migrants and refugees say they were placed in
> "body bags" and subjected to the use of tasers by Immigration and Customs
> Enforcement (ICE) officers as they were deported from the United States,
> the
> Guardian reported Friday.
> In early April, 85 Bangladeshis, Nepalis and Indians that had failed to
> gain
> asylum or otherwise secure legal status were sent back home on a charter
> flight from Mesa, Arizona.
> According to detainees that were interviewed, in order to place a detainee
> in what they called body bags, a group of ICE officers would pin them to
> the
> ground, tightly wrap them in a security blanket and fasten them with Velcro
> belts. Once the deportee was restrained in such a manner, they were carried
> on to the plane.
> "That's something that made us really afraid," said Suhel Ahmed, a detainee
> who told The Guardian about his experience witnessing these incidents. "And
> me and a lot of fellow detainees started crying and begging [the ICE
> officers] not to do the same thing to us - we told them, 'we'll walk,
> 'we'll
> walk' [on to the plane]."
> Ahmed also recounted being in fear at witnessing people being tasered.
> "My body was shaking [in fear]," said Ahmed, describing how he watched
> people being shocked.
> In an email to the Guardian, ICE officials admitted that ICE officers had
> used "minimal force" during boarding after "approximately a dozen of the
> detainees refused to comply with officers' instructions and became
> combative." In such an instance, they said, restraint blankets may also be
> used.
> However, ICE officers denied the taser allegations.
> But despite the ICE's claims that only minimal force was used, all 85
> detainees were handcuffed throughout their journey, which sometimes lasted
> over 30 hours and resulted in them suffering minor injuries. Some detainees
> were even left bleeding.
> These allegations, if true, are extremely troubling and must be
> investigated," Paromita Shah, the associate director of the National
> Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild told The Guardian.
> Fahd Ahmed, the executive director of Drum, a New York-based immigrants'
> rights organization said to the Guardian: "Trump talks about building walls
> or banning Muslims while the Obama administration is preventing refugees,
> Muslims and others from seeking safety here, violently abusing such
> migrants, and then colluding with other governments to deport them back to
> their deaths."
> Back in Bangladesh, where many of the migrants and refugees were from, fear
> for their lives and live in hiding.
> "When I came to the US I had a dream - this is the country of peace and
> justice and human rights," said Khaled Miah, 36, describing why he had
> embarked on the dangerous journey. "Now, I don't even want to say the word,
> 'America'."
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>
>
>
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Re: [blind-democracy] The New York Times's (and Clinton Campaign's) Abject Cowardice on Israel
There is much food for discussion here, but I wanted to focus on
Greenwald's following remark. It underscores just why Bernie Sanders,
or any candidate not blessed by the Democrat Leadership cannot win.
"Even worse was the disgraceful scene from their 2012 Convention: the
Platform Committee had omitted any reference to "God" and, worse, had decided
not to say that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Obama campaign
officials were eager to rectify this blasphemy, so arranged for an
"amendment" to the Platform to be introduced to the full Convention, which
required 2/3rd's approval from the delegates. When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa came to the podium to ask delegates to vote, it was obvious
that the majority was opposed. Confused and bewildered at the refusal of
delegates to obey the script of party leaders, he asked for a vote three
separate times, and on the third time, even when it was clear that they did
not have the votes, he simply lied and proclaimed the pro-Israel and pro-God
amendment passed with 2/3rd's approval:..."
How blind or uncaring have Americans become not to see that the System
is broke? We have had years of shoring it up, hoping we might create
a better life for the masses, within the growing American Empire. But
the Empire demands all resources and all loyalty be given it. If we
continue with this false hope, we are condemning our children and
future generations to increasing oppression and poverty.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/31/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Greenwald writes: "The refusal to use the word occupation without scare
> quotes is one of the most cowardly editorial decisions the New York Times
> has made since refusing to use the word 'torture' because the Bush
> administration denied its validity."
>
> Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
>
>
> The New York Times's (and Clinton Campaign's) Abject Cowardice on Israel
> By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
> 30 May 16
>
> On January, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon delivered a speech to the
> Security Council about, as he put it, violence "in Israel and the occupied
> Palestinian territory," noting that "Palestinian frustration is growing
> under the weight of a half century of occupation" and that "it is human
> nature to react to occupation." His use of the word "occupation" was not
> remotely controversial because multiple U.N. Security Resolutions, such as
> 446 (adopted unanimously in 1979 with 3 abstentions), have long declared
> Israel the illegal "occupying power" in the West Bank and Gaza.
> Unsurprisingly, newspapers around the world - such as the Wall Street
> Journal, the Guardian, the BBC, the LA Times - routinely and flatly
> describe
> Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza in their news articles as what it
> is: an occupation.
> In fact, essentially the entire world recognizes the reality of Israeli
> occupation with the exception of a tiny sliver of extremists in Israel and
> the U.S. That's why Chris Christie had to grovel in apology to GOP
> billionaire and Israel-devoted fanatic Sheldon Adelson when the New Jersey
> Governor neutrally described having seen the "occupied territories" during
> a
> trip he took to Israel. But other than among those zealots, the word is
> simply a fact, used without controversy under the mandates of international
> law, the institutions that apply it, and governments on every continent on
> the planet.
> But not the New York Times. They are afraid to use the word. In a NYT
> article today by Jason Horowitz and Maggie Haberman on the imminent
> conflict
> over Israel and Palestine between Sanders-appointed and Clinton-appointed
> members of the Democratic Party Platform Committee, this grotesque use of
> scare quotes appears:
> A bitter divide over the Middle East could threaten Democratic Party unity
> as representatives of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to upend what
> they see as the party's lopsided support of Israel.
> Two of the senator's appointees to the party's platform drafting committee,
> Cornel West and James Zogby, on Wednesday denounced Israel's "occupation"
> of
> the West Bank and Gaza and said they believed that rank-and-file Democrats
> no longer hewed to the party's staunch support of the Israeli government.
> They said they would try to get their views incorporated into the platform,
> the party's statement of core beliefs, at the Democratic National
> Convention
> in Philadelphia in July.
> The refusal to use the word occupation without scare quotes is one of the
> most cowardly editorial decisions the New York Times has made since
> refusing
> to use the word "torture" because the Bush administration denied its
> validity (a decision they reversed only when President Obama in 2014 gave
> them permission to do so by using the word himself). This is journalistic
> malfeasance at its worst: refusing to describe the world truthfully out of
> fear of the negative reaction by influential factions (making today's
> article even stranger is that a NYT article from February on settlers' use
> of Airbnb referred to "illegal settler outpost deep in the occupied West
> Bank"). And the NYT's editorial decision raises this question, posed this
> morning by one man in the West Bank:
> The cowardice of the NYT regarding Israel is matched only by the Clinton
> campaign's. Clinton has repeatedly vowed to move the U.S. closer not only
> to
> Israel but also to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Pandering to
> Israel - vowing blind support for its government - is a vile centerpiece of
> her campaign.
> The changes to the Democratic Party platform proposed by Bernie Sanders'
> appointees such as Cornel West, Keith Ellison and James Zogby - which
> Israel-supporting Clinton appointees such as Neera Tanden and Wendy Sherman
> are certain to oppose - are incredibly mild, including echoing the
> international consensus in condemning the Israeli occupation. As the
> Israeli
> writer Noam Sheizaf put it this morning, the NYT's use of scare quotes is
> "just as pathetic as the Democratic fear that their platform would actually
> say Palestinians deserve civil rights."
> This craven posture is particularly appalling as Israel just this week has
> taken an even harder turn toward extremism, prompting its former Prime
> Minister, Ehud Barak, to warn that Israel has been "infected by the seeds
> of
> fascism." While the former Israeli Prime Minister issues warnings that
> grave, establishment Democrats are petrified of even the most tepid
> stances.
> But Democratic Party cowardice on Israel is nothing new. In 2003, the
> pre-lobbyist-money-infected Howard Dean was publicly mauled by top
> Democrats
> - led by Nancy Pelosi - for the crime of saying the U.S. should be
> "even-handed" in its attempts to forge a peace agreement between the
> Israelis and Palestinians.
> Even worse was the disgraceful scene from their 2012 Convention: the
> Platform Committee had omitted any reference to "God" and, worse, had
> decide
> not to say that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Obama campaign
> officials were eager to rectify this blasphemy, so arranged for an
> "amendment" to the Platform to be introduced to the full Convention, which
> required 2/3 approval from the delegates. When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
> Villaraigosa came to the podium to ask delegates to vote, it was obvious
> that the majority was opposed. Confused and bewildered at the refusal of
> delegates to obey the script of party leaders, he asked for a vote three
> separate times, and on the third time, even when it was clear that they did
> not have the votes, he simply lied and proclaimed the pro-Israel and
> pro-God
> amendment passed with 2/3 approval:
> That is the level of Orwellian distortion needed to maintain the blatantly
> false narratives about Israel that have prevailed for so long as bipartisan
> U.S. orthodoxy. As today's article demonstrates, the New York Times not
> only
> submits to that propagandistic orthodoxy but plays a leading role in
> sustaining it.
> * * * * *
> For anyone who wants to claim that Israel only occupies the West Bank but
> not Gaza (a point irrelevant to the critique in this article), see this
> outstanding two-minute video.
> UPDATE: After publication of this article, the NYT edited their own to
> remove the scare quotes around "occupation," though did so quietly, with no
> editorial explanation or note. The original version, however, appeared on
> A1
> of this morning's print edition.
>
>
>
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
> https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/the-new-york-times-and-clinton-campaigns
> -abject-cowardice-on-israel/https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/the-new-york
> -times-and-clinton-campaigns-abject-cowardice-on-israel/
> The New York Times's (and Clinton Campaign's) Abject Cowardice on Israel
> By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
> 30 May 16
> n January, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon delivered a speech to the
> Security Council about, as he put it, violence "in Israel and the occupied
> Palestinian territory," noting that "Palestinian frustration is growing
> under the weight of a half century of occupation" and that "it is human
> nature to react to occupation." His use of the word "occupation" was not
> remotely controversial because multiple U.N. Security Resolutions, such as
> 446 (adopted unanimously in 1979 with 3 abstentions), have long declared
> Israel the illegal "occupying power" in the West Bank and Gaza.
> Unsurprisingly, newspapers around the world - such as the Wall Street
> Journal, the Guardian, the BBC, the LA Times - routinely and flatly
> describe
> Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza in their news articles as what it
> is: an occupation.
> In fact, essentially the entire world recognizes the reality of Israeli
> occupation with the exception of a tiny sliver of extremists in Israel and
> the U.S. That's why Chris Christie had to grovel in apology to GOP
> billionaire and Israel-devoted fanatic Sheldon Adelson when the New Jersey
> Governor neutrally described having seen the "occupied territories" during
> a
> trip he took to Israel. But other than among those zealots, the word is
> simply a fact, used without controversy under the mandates of international
> law, the institutions that apply it, and governments on every continent on
> the planet.
> But not the New York Times. They are afraid to use the word. In a NYT
> article today by Jason Horowitz and Maggie Haberman on the imminent
> conflict
> over Israel and Palestine between Sanders-appointed and Clinton-appointed
> members of the Democratic Party Platform Committee, this grotesque use of
> scare quotes appears:
> A bitter divide over the Middle East could threaten Democratic Party unity
> as representatives of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to upend what
> they see as the party's lopsided support of Israel.
> Two of the senator's appointees to the party's platform drafting committee,
> Cornel West and James Zogby, on Wednesday denounced Israel's "occupation"
> of
> the West Bank and Gaza and said they believed that rank-and-file Democrats
> no longer hewed to the party's staunch support of the Israeli government.
> They said they would try to get their views incorporated into the platform,
> the party's statement of core beliefs, at the Democratic National
> Convention
> in Philadelphia in July.
> The refusal to use the word occupation without scare quotes is one of the
> most cowardly editorial decisions the New York Times has made since
> refusing
> to use the word "torture" because the Bush administration denied its
> validity (a decision they reversed only when President Obama in 2014 gave
> them permission to do so by using the word himself). This is journalistic
> malfeasance at its worst: refusing to describe the world truthfully out of
> fear of the negative reaction by influential factions (making today's
> article even stranger is that a NYT article from February on settlers' use
> of Airbnb referred to "illegal settler outpost deep in the occupied West
> Bank"). And the NYT's editorial decision raises this question, posed this
> morning by one man in the West Bank:
> The cowardice of the NYT regarding Israel is matched only by the Clinton
> campaign's. Clinton has repeatedly vowed to move the U.S. closer not only
> to
> Israel but also to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Pandering to
> Israel - vowing blind support for its government - is a vile centerpiece of
> her campaign.
> The changes to the Democratic Party platform proposed by Bernie Sanders'
> appointees such as Cornel West, Keith Ellison and James Zogby - which
> Israel-supporting Clinton appointees such as Neera Tanden and Wendy Sherman
> are certain to oppose - are incredibly mild, including echoing the
> international consensus in condemning the Israeli occupation. As the
> Israeli
> writer Noam Sheizaf put it this morning, the NYT's use of scare quotes is
> "just as pathetic as the Democratic fear that their platform would actually
> say Palestinians deserve civil rights."
> This craven posture is particularly appalling as Israel just this week has
> taken an even harder turn toward extremism, prompting its former Prime
> Minister, Ehud Barak, to warn that Israel has been "infected by the seeds
> of
> fascism." While the former Israeli Prime Minister issues warnings that
> grave, establishment Democrats are petrified of even the most tepid
> stances.
> But Democratic Party cowardice on Israel is nothing new. In 2003, the
> pre-lobbyist-money-infected Howard Dean was publicly mauled by top
> Democrats
> - led by Nancy Pelosi - for the crime of saying the U.S. should be
> "even-handed" in its attempts to forge a peace agreement between the
> Israelis and Palestinians.
> Even worse was the disgraceful scene from their 2012 Convention: the
> Platform Committee had omitted any reference to "God" and, worse, had
> decide
> not to say that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Obama campaign
> officials were eager to rectify this blasphemy, so arranged for an
> "amendment" to the Platform to be introduced to the full Convention, which
> required 2/3 approval from the delegates. When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
> Villaraigosa came to the podium to ask delegates to vote, it was obvious
> that the majority was opposed. Confused and bewildered at the refusal of
> delegates to obey the script of party leaders, he asked for a vote three
> separate times, and on the third time, even when it was clear that they did
> not have the votes, he simply lied and proclaimed the pro-Israel and
> pro-God
> amendment passed with 2/3 approval:
> That is the level of Orwellian distortion needed to maintain the blatantly
> false narratives about Israel that have prevailed for so long as bipartisan
> U.S. orthodoxy. As today's article demonstrates, the New York Times not
> only
> submits to that propagandistic orthodoxy but plays a leading role in
> sustaining it.
> * * * * *
> For anyone who wants to claim that Israel only occupies the West Bank but
> not Gaza (a point irrelevant to the critique in this article), see this
> outstanding two-minute video.
> UPDATE: After publication of this article, the NYT edited their own to
> remove the scare quotes around "occupation," though did so quietly, with no
> editorial explanation or note. The original version, however, appeared on
> A1
> of this morning's print edition.
>
>
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>
>
>
Greenwald's following remark. It underscores just why Bernie Sanders,
or any candidate not blessed by the Democrat Leadership cannot win.
"Even worse was the disgraceful scene from their 2012 Convention: the
Platform Committee had omitted any reference to "God" and, worse, had decided
not to say that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Obama campaign
officials were eager to rectify this blasphemy, so arranged for an
"amendment" to the Platform to be introduced to the full Convention, which
required 2/3rd's approval from the delegates. When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa came to the podium to ask delegates to vote, it was obvious
that the majority was opposed. Confused and bewildered at the refusal of
delegates to obey the script of party leaders, he asked for a vote three
separate times, and on the third time, even when it was clear that they did
not have the votes, he simply lied and proclaimed the pro-Israel and pro-God
amendment passed with 2/3rd's approval:..."
How blind or uncaring have Americans become not to see that the System
is broke? We have had years of shoring it up, hoping we might create
a better life for the masses, within the growing American Empire. But
the Empire demands all resources and all loyalty be given it. If we
continue with this false hope, we are condemning our children and
future generations to increasing oppression and poverty.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/31/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Greenwald writes: "The refusal to use the word occupation without scare
> quotes is one of the most cowardly editorial decisions the New York Times
> has made since refusing to use the word 'torture' because the Bush
> administration denied its validity."
>
> Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
>
>
> The New York Times's (and Clinton Campaign's) Abject Cowardice on Israel
> By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
> 30 May 16
>
> On January, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon delivered a speech to the
> Security Council about, as he put it, violence "in Israel and the occupied
> Palestinian territory," noting that "Palestinian frustration is growing
> under the weight of a half century of occupation" and that "it is human
> nature to react to occupation." His use of the word "occupation" was not
> remotely controversial because multiple U.N. Security Resolutions, such as
> 446 (adopted unanimously in 1979 with 3 abstentions), have long declared
> Israel the illegal "occupying power" in the West Bank and Gaza.
> Unsurprisingly, newspapers around the world - such as the Wall Street
> Journal, the Guardian, the BBC, the LA Times - routinely and flatly
> describe
> Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza in their news articles as what it
> is: an occupation.
> In fact, essentially the entire world recognizes the reality of Israeli
> occupation with the exception of a tiny sliver of extremists in Israel and
> the U.S. That's why Chris Christie had to grovel in apology to GOP
> billionaire and Israel-devoted fanatic Sheldon Adelson when the New Jersey
> Governor neutrally described having seen the "occupied territories" during
> a
> trip he took to Israel. But other than among those zealots, the word is
> simply a fact, used without controversy under the mandates of international
> law, the institutions that apply it, and governments on every continent on
> the planet.
> But not the New York Times. They are afraid to use the word. In a NYT
> article today by Jason Horowitz and Maggie Haberman on the imminent
> conflict
> over Israel and Palestine between Sanders-appointed and Clinton-appointed
> members of the Democratic Party Platform Committee, this grotesque use of
> scare quotes appears:
> A bitter divide over the Middle East could threaten Democratic Party unity
> as representatives of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to upend what
> they see as the party's lopsided support of Israel.
> Two of the senator's appointees to the party's platform drafting committee,
> Cornel West and James Zogby, on Wednesday denounced Israel's "occupation"
> of
> the West Bank and Gaza and said they believed that rank-and-file Democrats
> no longer hewed to the party's staunch support of the Israeli government.
> They said they would try to get their views incorporated into the platform,
> the party's statement of core beliefs, at the Democratic National
> Convention
> in Philadelphia in July.
> The refusal to use the word occupation without scare quotes is one of the
> most cowardly editorial decisions the New York Times has made since
> refusing
> to use the word "torture" because the Bush administration denied its
> validity (a decision they reversed only when President Obama in 2014 gave
> them permission to do so by using the word himself). This is journalistic
> malfeasance at its worst: refusing to describe the world truthfully out of
> fear of the negative reaction by influential factions (making today's
> article even stranger is that a NYT article from February on settlers' use
> of Airbnb referred to "illegal settler outpost deep in the occupied West
> Bank"). And the NYT's editorial decision raises this question, posed this
> morning by one man in the West Bank:
> The cowardice of the NYT regarding Israel is matched only by the Clinton
> campaign's. Clinton has repeatedly vowed to move the U.S. closer not only
> to
> Israel but also to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Pandering to
> Israel - vowing blind support for its government - is a vile centerpiece of
> her campaign.
> The changes to the Democratic Party platform proposed by Bernie Sanders'
> appointees such as Cornel West, Keith Ellison and James Zogby - which
> Israel-supporting Clinton appointees such as Neera Tanden and Wendy Sherman
> are certain to oppose - are incredibly mild, including echoing the
> international consensus in condemning the Israeli occupation. As the
> Israeli
> writer Noam Sheizaf put it this morning, the NYT's use of scare quotes is
> "just as pathetic as the Democratic fear that their platform would actually
> say Palestinians deserve civil rights."
> This craven posture is particularly appalling as Israel just this week has
> taken an even harder turn toward extremism, prompting its former Prime
> Minister, Ehud Barak, to warn that Israel has been "infected by the seeds
> of
> fascism." While the former Israeli Prime Minister issues warnings that
> grave, establishment Democrats are petrified of even the most tepid
> stances.
> But Democratic Party cowardice on Israel is nothing new. In 2003, the
> pre-lobbyist-money-infected Howard Dean was publicly mauled by top
> Democrats
> - led by Nancy Pelosi - for the crime of saying the U.S. should be
> "even-handed" in its attempts to forge a peace agreement between the
> Israelis and Palestinians.
> Even worse was the disgraceful scene from their 2012 Convention: the
> Platform Committee had omitted any reference to "God" and, worse, had
> decide
> not to say that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Obama campaign
> officials were eager to rectify this blasphemy, so arranged for an
> "amendment" to the Platform to be introduced to the full Convention, which
> required 2/3 approval from the delegates. When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
> Villaraigosa came to the podium to ask delegates to vote, it was obvious
> that the majority was opposed. Confused and bewildered at the refusal of
> delegates to obey the script of party leaders, he asked for a vote three
> separate times, and on the third time, even when it was clear that they did
> not have the votes, he simply lied and proclaimed the pro-Israel and
> pro-God
> amendment passed with 2/3 approval:
> That is the level of Orwellian distortion needed to maintain the blatantly
> false narratives about Israel that have prevailed for so long as bipartisan
> U.S. orthodoxy. As today's article demonstrates, the New York Times not
> only
> submits to that propagandistic orthodoxy but plays a leading role in
> sustaining it.
> * * * * *
> For anyone who wants to claim that Israel only occupies the West Bank but
> not Gaza (a point irrelevant to the critique in this article), see this
> outstanding two-minute video.
> UPDATE: After publication of this article, the NYT edited their own to
> remove the scare quotes around "occupation," though did so quietly, with no
> editorial explanation or note. The original version, however, appeared on
> A1
> of this morning's print edition.
>
>
>
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
> https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/the-new-york-times-and-clinton-campaigns
> -abject-cowardice-on-israel/https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/the-new-york
> -times-and-clinton-campaigns-abject-cowardice-on-israel/
> The New York Times's (and Clinton Campaign's) Abject Cowardice on Israel
> By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
> 30 May 16
> n January, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon delivered a speech to the
> Security Council about, as he put it, violence "in Israel and the occupied
> Palestinian territory," noting that "Palestinian frustration is growing
> under the weight of a half century of occupation" and that "it is human
> nature to react to occupation." His use of the word "occupation" was not
> remotely controversial because multiple U.N. Security Resolutions, such as
> 446 (adopted unanimously in 1979 with 3 abstentions), have long declared
> Israel the illegal "occupying power" in the West Bank and Gaza.
> Unsurprisingly, newspapers around the world - such as the Wall Street
> Journal, the Guardian, the BBC, the LA Times - routinely and flatly
> describe
> Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza in their news articles as what it
> is: an occupation.
> In fact, essentially the entire world recognizes the reality of Israeli
> occupation with the exception of a tiny sliver of extremists in Israel and
> the U.S. That's why Chris Christie had to grovel in apology to GOP
> billionaire and Israel-devoted fanatic Sheldon Adelson when the New Jersey
> Governor neutrally described having seen the "occupied territories" during
> a
> trip he took to Israel. But other than among those zealots, the word is
> simply a fact, used without controversy under the mandates of international
> law, the institutions that apply it, and governments on every continent on
> the planet.
> But not the New York Times. They are afraid to use the word. In a NYT
> article today by Jason Horowitz and Maggie Haberman on the imminent
> conflict
> over Israel and Palestine between Sanders-appointed and Clinton-appointed
> members of the Democratic Party Platform Committee, this grotesque use of
> scare quotes appears:
> A bitter divide over the Middle East could threaten Democratic Party unity
> as representatives of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to upend what
> they see as the party's lopsided support of Israel.
> Two of the senator's appointees to the party's platform drafting committee,
> Cornel West and James Zogby, on Wednesday denounced Israel's "occupation"
> of
> the West Bank and Gaza and said they believed that rank-and-file Democrats
> no longer hewed to the party's staunch support of the Israeli government.
> They said they would try to get their views incorporated into the platform,
> the party's statement of core beliefs, at the Democratic National
> Convention
> in Philadelphia in July.
> The refusal to use the word occupation without scare quotes is one of the
> most cowardly editorial decisions the New York Times has made since
> refusing
> to use the word "torture" because the Bush administration denied its
> validity (a decision they reversed only when President Obama in 2014 gave
> them permission to do so by using the word himself). This is journalistic
> malfeasance at its worst: refusing to describe the world truthfully out of
> fear of the negative reaction by influential factions (making today's
> article even stranger is that a NYT article from February on settlers' use
> of Airbnb referred to "illegal settler outpost deep in the occupied West
> Bank"). And the NYT's editorial decision raises this question, posed this
> morning by one man in the West Bank:
> The cowardice of the NYT regarding Israel is matched only by the Clinton
> campaign's. Clinton has repeatedly vowed to move the U.S. closer not only
> to
> Israel but also to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Pandering to
> Israel - vowing blind support for its government - is a vile centerpiece of
> her campaign.
> The changes to the Democratic Party platform proposed by Bernie Sanders'
> appointees such as Cornel West, Keith Ellison and James Zogby - which
> Israel-supporting Clinton appointees such as Neera Tanden and Wendy Sherman
> are certain to oppose - are incredibly mild, including echoing the
> international consensus in condemning the Israeli occupation. As the
> Israeli
> writer Noam Sheizaf put it this morning, the NYT's use of scare quotes is
> "just as pathetic as the Democratic fear that their platform would actually
> say Palestinians deserve civil rights."
> This craven posture is particularly appalling as Israel just this week has
> taken an even harder turn toward extremism, prompting its former Prime
> Minister, Ehud Barak, to warn that Israel has been "infected by the seeds
> of
> fascism." While the former Israeli Prime Minister issues warnings that
> grave, establishment Democrats are petrified of even the most tepid
> stances.
> But Democratic Party cowardice on Israel is nothing new. In 2003, the
> pre-lobbyist-money-infected Howard Dean was publicly mauled by top
> Democrats
> - led by Nancy Pelosi - for the crime of saying the U.S. should be
> "even-handed" in its attempts to forge a peace agreement between the
> Israelis and Palestinians.
> Even worse was the disgraceful scene from their 2012 Convention: the
> Platform Committee had omitted any reference to "God" and, worse, had
> decide
> not to say that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Obama campaign
> officials were eager to rectify this blasphemy, so arranged for an
> "amendment" to the Platform to be introduced to the full Convention, which
> required 2/3 approval from the delegates. When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
> Villaraigosa came to the podium to ask delegates to vote, it was obvious
> that the majority was opposed. Confused and bewildered at the refusal of
> delegates to obey the script of party leaders, he asked for a vote three
> separate times, and on the third time, even when it was clear that they did
> not have the votes, he simply lied and proclaimed the pro-Israel and
> pro-God
> amendment passed with 2/3 approval:
> That is the level of Orwellian distortion needed to maintain the blatantly
> false narratives about Israel that have prevailed for so long as bipartisan
> U.S. orthodoxy. As today's article demonstrates, the New York Times not
> only
> submits to that propagandistic orthodoxy but plays a leading role in
> sustaining it.
> * * * * *
> For anyone who wants to claim that Israel only occupies the West Bank but
> not Gaza (a point irrelevant to the critique in this article), see this
> outstanding two-minute video.
> UPDATE: After publication of this article, the NYT edited their own to
> remove the scare quotes around "occupation," though did so quietly, with no
> editorial explanation or note. The original version, however, appeared on
> A1
> of this morning's print edition.
>
>
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>
>
>
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
Frankly speaking Frank, I have believed for some time that we are
watching our nations morph into Corporate Nations. Traditional
national boundaries will blur and the Working Class will find
themselves being controlled by Corporate Governments. If I'm right,
then the Corporate Masters here in what was once the USA, are part of
a new "Nation" that includes the Ruling Class in Israel.
While we are being directed to place blame for our economic woes at
the feet of Russia or China, our Ruling Class will actually be in a
tussle with other international corporations for world dominance.
Even now, just who are we "defending"? What democracies have we
supported around the world? How much Peace now exists on Earth? The
fact is, we are being fed crap. Not by our good old USA, remember
that Republic? No, we may be told that we are protecting Freedom and
Democracy and protecting our nation, but it is the Empire we are
really serving. And our interests are far from those of the Empire.
But the interests of the American Empire embraces the armed camp we
call Israel. Along with the Empire's network of similar war camps, we
are seeing former nations stripped of their resources and their
citizens reduced to the level of slaves. We are living in the most
critical times in Human history. The next decade or two will
determine whether we survive as a Free People, or as Slaves, if we
even manage to survive.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/29/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
> OK there is some truth there but there are so many international
> corporations, often based in Israel, that are doing the job to us as well.
> Even corporations that we consider to be "American" have their financial
> holdings in international venues.
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:50 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>
> Certainly we can draw similarities between pre-WW II and our present mess,
> but one difference is the economic pressure that was placed on the backs of
> the German people, following WW I, was put there by those wishing to control
> Germany and suck up her resources to enrich the emerging corporations in
> England, Europe and, to some degree, the USA, while today's economic mess is
> caused from within our own borders by Corporate Terrorists, sucking up all
> our resources for their own enrichment.
> Of course, in both cases, it is the working class that suffers and bears the
> brunt of the financial burden as well as for the blame when the house of
> cards collapses.
>
> Carl Jarvis
> On 5/28/16, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The scary thing. And I mean the really scary thing is this is all
>> like, or similar to Weimer Germany in 1933, or the early 1920's with
>> the bombast Mussulini.
>>
>> And what makes it wors or, even more scary is we've got Hilliry
>> playing the
>>
>> puppet.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Frank Ventura" <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com>
>> To: <blind-democracy@freelists.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 11:04 AM
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>
>>
>> As well as the white, daytime TV watching soccer moms.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of joe harcz
>> Comcast
>> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 9:31 AM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>
>> One correction: It isn't the entire working class that is behind
>> Trump. It is the white, male, older working class.
>>
>> It is a reactionary element that got all it had by fights of
>> socialists in the past and now betrays the history of it all.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
>> To: <blind-democracy@freelists.org>
>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 10:08 PM
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>
>>
>>> Well, I don't want to be cynical or anything, and maybe it's because
>>> I just finished that book on BARD about Trump, but let's remember
>>> that it is the working class who are his zealous followers. It is
>>> they who avidly watch reality TV and read all those gossip columns
>>> and articles in People Magazine for all these years, all about
>>> celebrities. It is the working class, who want to be rich like Trump
>>> keeps bragging about and who want to keep outsiders, meaning anyone
>>> who looks different from them, out of our country.
>>> Yes, they're waking up and they're angry. But are they angry because
>>> our country isn't caring for all of us or because they aren't
>>> getting what they want?
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl
>>> Jarvis
>>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 9:04 PM
>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>>
>>> It might have been on the streets of New York or Chicago, but this
>>> was not a police action, it was, "an Israeli soldier who was caught
>>> on videotape shooting in the head, at close range, a Palestinian man
>>> who was wounded and lying on the ground, already subdued and
>>> obviously not a threat."
>>> But whether it be soldiers in Palestine or Police in American Slums,
>>> the message is the same. Obey or suffer.
>>> But the tide is turning. The Working Class has begun to stir. Long
>>> suffering men and women are beginning to understand that while the
>>> Ruling Class has the guns, the Working Class has the power to bring
>>> the Empire to its knees, simply by doing nothing. Just staying home,
>>> or under the bridges and in the tent cities. Refusing to harvest the
>>> Master's crops or haul them to market, or to build his mansions or
>>> glass towers, or march in his armies, or patrol the streets and
>>> keeping the Ruling Classes laws.
>>> But it will take understanding by all of those people who are bound
>>> to serve the Empire's Rulers through the purchase of their loyalty
>>> and the promise of a better life than that of the masses. They must
>>> understand that they cannot serve the Masters and be Freemen.
>>> Submitting to the Ruling Class demands obedience. All who serve this
>>> monster will never be free. And they will never be truly safe.
>>>
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>> On 5/27/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pillar writes: "There already shouldn't have been any doubt about
>>>> the orientation of the current Israeli government and the associated
>>>> obduracy of that government in blocking any path toward resolution
>>>> of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The government led by Benjamin
>>>> Netanyahu is firmly rightist, dominated by those opposed to the
>>>> relinquishing of occupied territory or the creation of a Palestinian
>>>> state."
>>>>
>>>> Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu with Israel's new defense minister
>>>> Avigdor Lieberman. (photo: Getty)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>>> By Paul R. Pillar, Consortium News
>>>> 26 May 16
>>>>
>>>> Hillary Clinton says she wants to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship
>>>> "to the next level" even as Prime Minister Netanyahu's right-wing
>>>> regime plumbs new depths of extremism, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R.
>>>> Pillar notes.
>>>> here already shouldn't have been any doubt about the orientation of
>>>> the current Israeli government and the associated obduracy of that
>>>> government in blocking any path toward resolution of the
>>>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>>>> The
>>>> government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is firmly rightist, dominated
>>>> by those opposed to the relinquishing of occupied territory or the
>>>> creation of a Palestinian state.
>>>> Netanyahu, who comes across as one of the more moderate members of
>>>> his own coalition, has paid more lip service than some other members
>>>> of that coalition to the idea of an eventual Palestinian state, but
>>>> he has made clear with other words and actions that he has no
>>>> intention of any such thing coming into being on his watch, or of
>>>> taking any meaningful steps toward such a state coming into being.
>>>> Now come reports that Netanyahu is offering the Defense Ministry to
>>>> former Moldovan nightclub bouncer (and resident of a West Bank
>>>> settlement) Avigdor Lieberman. This will bring into the ruling
>>>> coalition Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, which even within the
>>>> Israeli context is usually described as "hard right."
>>>> Bringing Lieberman into the government is indicative not only of the
>>>> overall orientation of that government but also of some larger
>>>> disturbing trends in Israeli attitudes that the government has
>>>> fomented more than it has discouraged.
>>>> If Lieberman is made defense minister he would replace Moshe
>>>> Ya'alon, who in recent days has backed the Israeli military in
>>>> prosecuting (though only for manslaughter, not the murder that
>>>> occurred) an Israeli soldier who was caught on videotape shooting in
>>>> the head, at close range, a Palestinian man who was wounded and
>>>> lying on the ground, already subdued and obviously not a threat.
>>>> Lieberman has joined other hardliners in expressing support for the
>>>> soldier.
>>>> (Netanyahu has visited the soldier's family to express sympathy.)
>>>> Netanyahu had been trying to recruit another coalition partner to
>>>> increase his government's thin majority in the Knesset. Talks with
>>>> centrist leader Isaac Herzog fell through; the government evidently
>>>> had more in common with the crude hard right tendencies of Lieberman.
>>>> Perhaps the timing of this latest political move was a natural
>>>> outcome of this sequence of negotiations.
>>>> Or maybe it was at least as much another example of Netanyahu's
>>>> proclivity for poking a stick in the eye of foreign leaders who look
>>>> like they might be getting on his case about the Palestinian
>>>> conflict
>>>> - such as timing an announcement of more settlement expansion to
>>>> coincide with a visit of Vice President Biden. This time the stickee
>>>> is the French government, which is organizing an international
>>>> conference for later this year on Israeli-Palestinian peace.
>>>> All honest outside observers should use the report about Lieberman
>>>> coming into the Israeli government as an occasion to remind
>>>> themselves that this tragic and long-running conflict continues to
>>>> run because one side refuses to end it. The gross asymmetry between
>>>> the two sides is
>>> all-important.
>>>> One side, the occupying power - the side with the firepower - has
>>>> the ability to end the occupation and resolve the conflict if it
>>>> decided to do so. The other side has no such power. That other side,
>>>> the Palestinian side, has tried to use violent resistance but has
>>>> subsequently and correctly drawn the conclusion that such violence
>>>> is not the answer; the violence, unsurprisingly, only stokes
>>>> legitimate fears among Israelis about their security.
>>>> Violence has been continuing in the unplanned, spontaneous, and
>>>> frustration-driven form of young people grabbing knives and stabbing
>>>> the first Israelis they can find. The Palestinian leadership has
>>>> turned to multilateral diplomacy, which, besides popular boycotts,
>>>> is about the only tool it has left. And the Israeli government does
>>>> everything it can to impede and to foil such diplomacy, as it is
>>>> trying to do now with the French initiative.
>>>> A common urge to sound impartial leads to the common refrain that
>>>> the Israeli-Palestinian conflict persists because neither side has
>>>> the political will to settle it. Nonsense. The overwhelming majority
>>>> of Palestinians do not want to continue to live under Israeli
>>>> occupation.
>>>> They have the will but not the power to settle.
>>>> There certainly are divisions and political weakness on the
>>>> Palestinian side
>>>> - of which the Israeli government has striven to prevent any repair,
>>>> such as in "punishing" the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority
>>>> through withholding tax revenue whenever it has moved toward
>>>> reconciliation with Hamas - but there is no significant
>>>> pro-occupation party among Palestinians.
>>>> The hardliners who control Israel policy have the power but - as
>>>> ample evidence, even without Avigdor Lieberman, has shown - not the
>>>> will, as long as third parties do not make them suffer any
>>>> meaningful consequences. They do want the occupation to continue.
>>>> The Netanyahu government's repeated claim that it wants to negotiate
>>>> with the Palestinians should be described as the charade that it is.
>>>> It is understandable that Palestinian leaders have no desire to
>>>> engage in talks that have no prospect of leading to anything, when
>>>> such engagement would just mean participating in the charade while
>>>> the occupation continues and more facts are built on the occupied
>>>> ground.
>>>> The insincerity is all the more obvious when Netanyahu speaks of
>>>> talks with "no preconditions" while at the same time insisting that
>>>> the Palestinians pronounce Israel to be a "Jewish state" - a
>>>> precondition that implicitly limits how the issue of Palestinian
>>>> refugees and right of return can be resolved, and also would mean
>>>> the Palestinian leadership formally signing on to a declaration that
>>>> non-Jewish Israelis are second-class citizens. Those are the only
>>>> things such a pronouncement would mean.
>>>> The Palestinian leadership long ago recognized, formally and
>>>> unequivocally, the state of Israel. As Palestinian leaders have
>>>> noted, that state is free to describe itself any way it wants.
>>>> With the American political system still wearing its usual
>>>> straitjacket on this issue, the main hope right now for taking any
>>>> steps out of this tragic situation lies with the French initiative.
>>>> If the United States is to do anything helpful any time in the
>>>> foreseeable future, it probably will have to come in the remaining
>>>> eight
>>> months of the Obama administration.
>>>> One of the two presumptive presidential nominees speaks of taking
>>>> U.S.-Israeli relations "to the next level" - and it is safe to
>>>> assume she doesn't mean that the next level will consist of imposing
>>>> consequences for the continued occupation.
>>>> The other presumptive presidential nominee caused nervous moments in
>>>> the Israel lobby when he talked about being impartial, but the
>>>> nerves were soothed with a speech to AIPAC that said all the "right"
>>>> things.
>>>> And now he has Sheldon Adelson and Adelson's heavyweight bankroll on
>>>> his side, with everything that implies for this nominee's future
>>>> posture on Israel-related issues if he were to be elected.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency,
>>>> rose to be one of the agency's top analysts. He is now a visiting
>>>> professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This
>>>> article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest's Web
>>>> site.
>>>> Reprinted with author's
>>>> permission.)
>>>> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference
>>>> not valid.
>>>>
>>>> Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu with Israel's new defense minister
>>>> Avigdor Lieberman. (photo: Getty)
>>>>
>>> https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/21/israel-veers-even-further-right/https:
>>>> //consortiumnews.com/2016/05/21/israel-veers-even-further-right/
>>>> Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>>> By Paul R. Pillar, Consortium News
>>>> 26 May 16
>>>> Hillary Clinton says she wants to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship
>>>> "to the next level" even as Prime Minister Netanyahu's right-wing
>>>> regime plumbs new depths of extremism, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R.
>>>> Pillar notes.
>>>> here already shouldn't have been any doubt about the orientation of
>>>> the current Israeli government and the associated obduracy of that
>>>> government in blocking any path toward resolution of the
>>>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>>>> The
>>>> government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is firmly rightist, dominated
>>>> by those opposed to the relinquishing of occupied territory or the
>>>> creation of a Palestinian state.
>>>> Netanyahu, who comes across as one of the more moderate members of
>>>> his own coalition, has paid more lip service than some other members
>>>> of that coalition to the idea of an eventual Palestinian state, but
>>>> he has made clear with other words and actions that he has no
>>>> intention of any such thing coming into being on his watch, or of
>>>> taking any meaningful steps toward such a state coming into being.
>>>> Now come reports that Netanyahu is offering the Defense Ministry to
>>>> former Moldovan nightclub bouncer (and resident of a West Bank
>>>> settlement) Avigdor Lieberman. This will bring into the ruling
>>>> coalition Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, which even within the
>>>> Israeli context is usually described as "hard right."
>>>> Bringing Lieberman into the government is indicative not only of the
>>>> overall orientation of that government but also of some larger
>>>> disturbing trends in Israeli attitudes that the government has
>>>> fomented more than it has discouraged.
>>>> If Lieberman is made defense minister he would replace Moshe
>>>> Ya'alon, who in recent days has backed the Israeli military in
>>>> prosecuting (though only for manslaughter, not the murder that
>>>> occurred) an Israeli soldier who was caught on videotape shooting in
>>>> the head, at close range, a Palestinian man who was wounded and
>>>> lying on the ground, already subdued and obviously not a threat.
>>>> Lieberman has joined other hardliners in expressing support for the
>>>> soldier.
>>>> (Netanyahu has visited the soldier's family to express sympathy.)
>>>> Netanyahu had been trying to recruit another coalition partner to
>>>> increase his government's thin majority in the Knesset. Talks with
>>>> centrist leader Isaac Herzog fell through; the government evidently
>>>> had more in common with the crude hard right tendencies of Lieberman.
>>>> Perhaps the timing of this latest political move was a natural
>>>> outcome of this sequence of negotiations.
>>>> Or maybe it was at least as much another example of Netanyahu's
>>>> proclivity for poking a stick in the eye of foreign leaders who look
>>>> like they might be getting on his case about the Palestinian
>>>> conflict
>>>> - such as timing an announcement of more settlement expansion to
>>>> coincide with a visit of Vice President Biden. This time the stickee
>>>> is the French government, which is organizing an international
>>>> conference for later this year on Israeli-Palestinian peace.
>>>> All honest outside observers should use the report about Lieberman
>>>> coming into the Israeli government as an occasion to remind
>>>> themselves that this tragic and long-running conflict continues to
>>>> run because one side refuses to end it. The gross asymmetry between
>>>> the two sides is
>>> all-important.
>>>> One side, the occupying power - the side with the firepower - has
>>>> the ability to end the occupation and resolve the conflict if it
>>>> decided to do so. The other side has no such power. That other side,
>>>> the Palestinian side, has tried to use violent resistance but has
>>>> subsequently and correctly drawn the conclusion that such violence
>>>> is not the answer; the violence, unsurprisingly, only stokes
>>>> legitimate fears among Israelis about their security.
>>>> Violence has been continuing in the unplanned, spontaneous, and
>>>> frustration-driven form of young people grabbing knives and stabbing
>>>> the first Israelis they can find. The Palestinian leadership has
>>>> turned to multilateral diplomacy, which, besides popular boycotts,
>>>> is about the only tool it has left. And the Israeli government does
>>>> everything it can to impede and to foil such diplomacy, as it is
>>>> trying to do now with the French initiative.
>>>> A common urge to sound impartial leads to the common refrain that
>>>> the Israeli-Palestinian conflict persists because neither side has
>>>> the political will to settle it. Nonsense. The overwhelming majority
>>>> of Palestinians do not want to continue to live under Israeli
>>>> occupation.
>>>> They have the will but not the power to settle.
>>>> There certainly are divisions and political weakness on the
>>>> Palestinian side
>>>> - of which the Israeli government has striven to prevent any repair,
>>>> such as in "punishing" the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority
>>>> through withholding tax revenue whenever it has moved toward
>>>> reconciliation with Hamas - but there is no significant
>>>> pro-occupation party among Palestinians.
>>>> The hardliners who control Israel policy have the power but - as
>>>> ample evidence, even without Avigdor Lieberman, has shown - not the
>>>> will, as long as third parties do not make them suffer any
>>>> meaningful consequences. They do want the occupation to continue.
>>>> The Netanyahu government's repeated claim that it wants to negotiate
>>>> with the Palestinians should be described as the charade that it is.
>>>> It is understandable that Palestinian leaders have no desire to
>>>> engage in talks that have no prospect of leading to anything, when
>>>> such engagement would just mean participating in the charade while
>>>> the occupation continues and more facts are built on the occupied
>>>> ground.
>>>> The insincerity is all the more obvious when Netanyahu speaks of
>>>> talks with "no preconditions" while at the same time insisting that
>>>> the Palestinians pronounce Israel to be a "Jewish state" - a
>>>> precondition that implicitly limits how the issue of Palestinian
>>>> refugees and right of return can be resolved, and also would mean
>>>> the Palestinian leadership formally signing on to a declaration that
>>>> non-Jewish Israelis are second-class citizens. Those are the only
>>>> things such a pronouncement would mean.
>>>> The Palestinian leadership long ago recognized, formally and
>>>> unequivocally, the state of Israel. As Palestinian leaders have
>>>> noted, that state is free to describe itself any way it wants.
>>>> With the American political system still wearing its usual
>>>> straitjacket on this issue, the main hope right now for taking any
>>>> steps out of this tragic situation lies with the French initiative.
>>>> If the United States is to do anything helpful any time in the
>>>> foreseeable future, it probably will have to come in the remaining
>>>> eight
>>> months of the Obama administration.
>>>> One of the two presumptive presidential nominees speaks of taking
>>>> U.S.-Israeli relations "to the next level" - and it is safe to
>>>> assume she doesn't mean that the next level will consist of imposing
>>>> consequences for the continued occupation.
>>>> The other presumptive presidential nominee caused nervous moments in
>>>> the Israel lobby when he talked about being impartial, but the
>>>> nerves were soothed with a speech to AIPAC that said all the "right"
>>>> things.
>>>> And now he has Sheldon Adelson and Adelson's heavyweight bankroll on
>>>> his side, with everything that implies for this nominee's future
>>>> posture on Israel-related issues if he were to be elected.
>>>>
>>>> Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency,
>>>> rose to be one of the agency's top analysts. He is now a visiting
>>>> professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This
>>>> article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest's Web
>>>> site.
>>>> Reprinted with author's
>>>> permission.)
>>>> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>>>> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
watching our nations morph into Corporate Nations. Traditional
national boundaries will blur and the Working Class will find
themselves being controlled by Corporate Governments. If I'm right,
then the Corporate Masters here in what was once the USA, are part of
a new "Nation" that includes the Ruling Class in Israel.
While we are being directed to place blame for our economic woes at
the feet of Russia or China, our Ruling Class will actually be in a
tussle with other international corporations for world dominance.
Even now, just who are we "defending"? What democracies have we
supported around the world? How much Peace now exists on Earth? The
fact is, we are being fed crap. Not by our good old USA, remember
that Republic? No, we may be told that we are protecting Freedom and
Democracy and protecting our nation, but it is the Empire we are
really serving. And our interests are far from those of the Empire.
But the interests of the American Empire embraces the armed camp we
call Israel. Along with the Empire's network of similar war camps, we
are seeing former nations stripped of their resources and their
citizens reduced to the level of slaves. We are living in the most
critical times in Human history. The next decade or two will
determine whether we survive as a Free People, or as Slaves, if we
even manage to survive.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/29/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
> OK there is some truth there but there are so many international
> corporations, often based in Israel, that are doing the job to us as well.
> Even corporations that we consider to be "American" have their financial
> holdings in international venues.
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:50 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>
> Certainly we can draw similarities between pre-WW II and our present mess,
> but one difference is the economic pressure that was placed on the backs of
> the German people, following WW I, was put there by those wishing to control
> Germany and suck up her resources to enrich the emerging corporations in
> England, Europe and, to some degree, the USA, while today's economic mess is
> caused from within our own borders by Corporate Terrorists, sucking up all
> our resources for their own enrichment.
> Of course, in both cases, it is the working class that suffers and bears the
> brunt of the financial burden as well as for the blame when the house of
> cards collapses.
>
> Carl Jarvis
> On 5/28/16, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The scary thing. And I mean the really scary thing is this is all
>> like, or similar to Weimer Germany in 1933, or the early 1920's with
>> the bombast Mussulini.
>>
>> And what makes it wors or, even more scary is we've got Hilliry
>> playing the
>>
>> puppet.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Frank Ventura" <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com>
>> To: <blind-democracy@freelists.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 11:04 AM
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>
>>
>> As well as the white, daytime TV watching soccer moms.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of joe harcz
>> Comcast
>> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 9:31 AM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>
>> One correction: It isn't the entire working class that is behind
>> Trump. It is the white, male, older working class.
>>
>> It is a reactionary element that got all it had by fights of
>> socialists in the past and now betrays the history of it all.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
>> To: <blind-democracy@freelists.org>
>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 10:08 PM
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>
>>
>>> Well, I don't want to be cynical or anything, and maybe it's because
>>> I just finished that book on BARD about Trump, but let's remember
>>> that it is the working class who are his zealous followers. It is
>>> they who avidly watch reality TV and read all those gossip columns
>>> and articles in People Magazine for all these years, all about
>>> celebrities. It is the working class, who want to be rich like Trump
>>> keeps bragging about and who want to keep outsiders, meaning anyone
>>> who looks different from them, out of our country.
>>> Yes, they're waking up and they're angry. But are they angry because
>>> our country isn't caring for all of us or because they aren't
>>> getting what they want?
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl
>>> Jarvis
>>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 9:04 PM
>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>>
>>> It might have been on the streets of New York or Chicago, but this
>>> was not a police action, it was, "an Israeli soldier who was caught
>>> on videotape shooting in the head, at close range, a Palestinian man
>>> who was wounded and lying on the ground, already subdued and
>>> obviously not a threat."
>>> But whether it be soldiers in Palestine or Police in American Slums,
>>> the message is the same. Obey or suffer.
>>> But the tide is turning. The Working Class has begun to stir. Long
>>> suffering men and women are beginning to understand that while the
>>> Ruling Class has the guns, the Working Class has the power to bring
>>> the Empire to its knees, simply by doing nothing. Just staying home,
>>> or under the bridges and in the tent cities. Refusing to harvest the
>>> Master's crops or haul them to market, or to build his mansions or
>>> glass towers, or march in his armies, or patrol the streets and
>>> keeping the Ruling Classes laws.
>>> But it will take understanding by all of those people who are bound
>>> to serve the Empire's Rulers through the purchase of their loyalty
>>> and the promise of a better life than that of the masses. They must
>>> understand that they cannot serve the Masters and be Freemen.
>>> Submitting to the Ruling Class demands obedience. All who serve this
>>> monster will never be free. And they will never be truly safe.
>>>
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>> On 5/27/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pillar writes: "There already shouldn't have been any doubt about
>>>> the orientation of the current Israeli government and the associated
>>>> obduracy of that government in blocking any path toward resolution
>>>> of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The government led by Benjamin
>>>> Netanyahu is firmly rightist, dominated by those opposed to the
>>>> relinquishing of occupied territory or the creation of a Palestinian
>>>> state."
>>>>
>>>> Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu with Israel's new defense minister
>>>> Avigdor Lieberman. (photo: Getty)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>>> By Paul R. Pillar, Consortium News
>>>> 26 May 16
>>>>
>>>> Hillary Clinton says she wants to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship
>>>> "to the next level" even as Prime Minister Netanyahu's right-wing
>>>> regime plumbs new depths of extremism, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R.
>>>> Pillar notes.
>>>> here already shouldn't have been any doubt about the orientation of
>>>> the current Israeli government and the associated obduracy of that
>>>> government in blocking any path toward resolution of the
>>>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>>>> The
>>>> government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is firmly rightist, dominated
>>>> by those opposed to the relinquishing of occupied territory or the
>>>> creation of a Palestinian state.
>>>> Netanyahu, who comes across as one of the more moderate members of
>>>> his own coalition, has paid more lip service than some other members
>>>> of that coalition to the idea of an eventual Palestinian state, but
>>>> he has made clear with other words and actions that he has no
>>>> intention of any such thing coming into being on his watch, or of
>>>> taking any meaningful steps toward such a state coming into being.
>>>> Now come reports that Netanyahu is offering the Defense Ministry to
>>>> former Moldovan nightclub bouncer (and resident of a West Bank
>>>> settlement) Avigdor Lieberman. This will bring into the ruling
>>>> coalition Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, which even within the
>>>> Israeli context is usually described as "hard right."
>>>> Bringing Lieberman into the government is indicative not only of the
>>>> overall orientation of that government but also of some larger
>>>> disturbing trends in Israeli attitudes that the government has
>>>> fomented more than it has discouraged.
>>>> If Lieberman is made defense minister he would replace Moshe
>>>> Ya'alon, who in recent days has backed the Israeli military in
>>>> prosecuting (though only for manslaughter, not the murder that
>>>> occurred) an Israeli soldier who was caught on videotape shooting in
>>>> the head, at close range, a Palestinian man who was wounded and
>>>> lying on the ground, already subdued and obviously not a threat.
>>>> Lieberman has joined other hardliners in expressing support for the
>>>> soldier.
>>>> (Netanyahu has visited the soldier's family to express sympathy.)
>>>> Netanyahu had been trying to recruit another coalition partner to
>>>> increase his government's thin majority in the Knesset. Talks with
>>>> centrist leader Isaac Herzog fell through; the government evidently
>>>> had more in common with the crude hard right tendencies of Lieberman.
>>>> Perhaps the timing of this latest political move was a natural
>>>> outcome of this sequence of negotiations.
>>>> Or maybe it was at least as much another example of Netanyahu's
>>>> proclivity for poking a stick in the eye of foreign leaders who look
>>>> like they might be getting on his case about the Palestinian
>>>> conflict
>>>> - such as timing an announcement of more settlement expansion to
>>>> coincide with a visit of Vice President Biden. This time the stickee
>>>> is the French government, which is organizing an international
>>>> conference for later this year on Israeli-Palestinian peace.
>>>> All honest outside observers should use the report about Lieberman
>>>> coming into the Israeli government as an occasion to remind
>>>> themselves that this tragic and long-running conflict continues to
>>>> run because one side refuses to end it. The gross asymmetry between
>>>> the two sides is
>>> all-important.
>>>> One side, the occupying power - the side with the firepower - has
>>>> the ability to end the occupation and resolve the conflict if it
>>>> decided to do so. The other side has no such power. That other side,
>>>> the Palestinian side, has tried to use violent resistance but has
>>>> subsequently and correctly drawn the conclusion that such violence
>>>> is not the answer; the violence, unsurprisingly, only stokes
>>>> legitimate fears among Israelis about their security.
>>>> Violence has been continuing in the unplanned, spontaneous, and
>>>> frustration-driven form of young people grabbing knives and stabbing
>>>> the first Israelis they can find. The Palestinian leadership has
>>>> turned to multilateral diplomacy, which, besides popular boycotts,
>>>> is about the only tool it has left. And the Israeli government does
>>>> everything it can to impede and to foil such diplomacy, as it is
>>>> trying to do now with the French initiative.
>>>> A common urge to sound impartial leads to the common refrain that
>>>> the Israeli-Palestinian conflict persists because neither side has
>>>> the political will to settle it. Nonsense. The overwhelming majority
>>>> of Palestinians do not want to continue to live under Israeli
>>>> occupation.
>>>> They have the will but not the power to settle.
>>>> There certainly are divisions and political weakness on the
>>>> Palestinian side
>>>> - of which the Israeli government has striven to prevent any repair,
>>>> such as in "punishing" the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority
>>>> through withholding tax revenue whenever it has moved toward
>>>> reconciliation with Hamas - but there is no significant
>>>> pro-occupation party among Palestinians.
>>>> The hardliners who control Israel policy have the power but - as
>>>> ample evidence, even without Avigdor Lieberman, has shown - not the
>>>> will, as long as third parties do not make them suffer any
>>>> meaningful consequences. They do want the occupation to continue.
>>>> The Netanyahu government's repeated claim that it wants to negotiate
>>>> with the Palestinians should be described as the charade that it is.
>>>> It is understandable that Palestinian leaders have no desire to
>>>> engage in talks that have no prospect of leading to anything, when
>>>> such engagement would just mean participating in the charade while
>>>> the occupation continues and more facts are built on the occupied
>>>> ground.
>>>> The insincerity is all the more obvious when Netanyahu speaks of
>>>> talks with "no preconditions" while at the same time insisting that
>>>> the Palestinians pronounce Israel to be a "Jewish state" - a
>>>> precondition that implicitly limits how the issue of Palestinian
>>>> refugees and right of return can be resolved, and also would mean
>>>> the Palestinian leadership formally signing on to a declaration that
>>>> non-Jewish Israelis are second-class citizens. Those are the only
>>>> things such a pronouncement would mean.
>>>> The Palestinian leadership long ago recognized, formally and
>>>> unequivocally, the state of Israel. As Palestinian leaders have
>>>> noted, that state is free to describe itself any way it wants.
>>>> With the American political system still wearing its usual
>>>> straitjacket on this issue, the main hope right now for taking any
>>>> steps out of this tragic situation lies with the French initiative.
>>>> If the United States is to do anything helpful any time in the
>>>> foreseeable future, it probably will have to come in the remaining
>>>> eight
>>> months of the Obama administration.
>>>> One of the two presumptive presidential nominees speaks of taking
>>>> U.S.-Israeli relations "to the next level" - and it is safe to
>>>> assume she doesn't mean that the next level will consist of imposing
>>>> consequences for the continued occupation.
>>>> The other presumptive presidential nominee caused nervous moments in
>>>> the Israel lobby when he talked about being impartial, but the
>>>> nerves were soothed with a speech to AIPAC that said all the "right"
>>>> things.
>>>> And now he has Sheldon Adelson and Adelson's heavyweight bankroll on
>>>> his side, with everything that implies for this nominee's future
>>>> posture on Israel-related issues if he were to be elected.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency,
>>>> rose to be one of the agency's top analysts. He is now a visiting
>>>> professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This
>>>> article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest's Web
>>>> site.
>>>> Reprinted with author's
>>>> permission.)
>>>> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference
>>>> not valid.
>>>>
>>>> Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu with Israel's new defense minister
>>>> Avigdor Lieberman. (photo: Getty)
>>>>
>>> https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/21/israel-veers-even-further-right/https:
>>>> //consortiumnews.com/2016/05/21/israel-veers-even-further-right/
>>>> Israel Veers Even Further Right
>>>> By Paul R. Pillar, Consortium News
>>>> 26 May 16
>>>> Hillary Clinton says she wants to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship
>>>> "to the next level" even as Prime Minister Netanyahu's right-wing
>>>> regime plumbs new depths of extremism, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R.
>>>> Pillar notes.
>>>> here already shouldn't have been any doubt about the orientation of
>>>> the current Israeli government and the associated obduracy of that
>>>> government in blocking any path toward resolution of the
>>>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>>>> The
>>>> government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is firmly rightist, dominated
>>>> by those opposed to the relinquishing of occupied territory or the
>>>> creation of a Palestinian state.
>>>> Netanyahu, who comes across as one of the more moderate members of
>>>> his own coalition, has paid more lip service than some other members
>>>> of that coalition to the idea of an eventual Palestinian state, but
>>>> he has made clear with other words and actions that he has no
>>>> intention of any such thing coming into being on his watch, or of
>>>> taking any meaningful steps toward such a state coming into being.
>>>> Now come reports that Netanyahu is offering the Defense Ministry to
>>>> former Moldovan nightclub bouncer (and resident of a West Bank
>>>> settlement) Avigdor Lieberman. This will bring into the ruling
>>>> coalition Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, which even within the
>>>> Israeli context is usually described as "hard right."
>>>> Bringing Lieberman into the government is indicative not only of the
>>>> overall orientation of that government but also of some larger
>>>> disturbing trends in Israeli attitudes that the government has
>>>> fomented more than it has discouraged.
>>>> If Lieberman is made defense minister he would replace Moshe
>>>> Ya'alon, who in recent days has backed the Israeli military in
>>>> prosecuting (though only for manslaughter, not the murder that
>>>> occurred) an Israeli soldier who was caught on videotape shooting in
>>>> the head, at close range, a Palestinian man who was wounded and
>>>> lying on the ground, already subdued and obviously not a threat.
>>>> Lieberman has joined other hardliners in expressing support for the
>>>> soldier.
>>>> (Netanyahu has visited the soldier's family to express sympathy.)
>>>> Netanyahu had been trying to recruit another coalition partner to
>>>> increase his government's thin majority in the Knesset. Talks with
>>>> centrist leader Isaac Herzog fell through; the government evidently
>>>> had more in common with the crude hard right tendencies of Lieberman.
>>>> Perhaps the timing of this latest political move was a natural
>>>> outcome of this sequence of negotiations.
>>>> Or maybe it was at least as much another example of Netanyahu's
>>>> proclivity for poking a stick in the eye of foreign leaders who look
>>>> like they might be getting on his case about the Palestinian
>>>> conflict
>>>> - such as timing an announcement of more settlement expansion to
>>>> coincide with a visit of Vice President Biden. This time the stickee
>>>> is the French government, which is organizing an international
>>>> conference for later this year on Israeli-Palestinian peace.
>>>> All honest outside observers should use the report about Lieberman
>>>> coming into the Israeli government as an occasion to remind
>>>> themselves that this tragic and long-running conflict continues to
>>>> run because one side refuses to end it. The gross asymmetry between
>>>> the two sides is
>>> all-important.
>>>> One side, the occupying power - the side with the firepower - has
>>>> the ability to end the occupation and resolve the conflict if it
>>>> decided to do so. The other side has no such power. That other side,
>>>> the Palestinian side, has tried to use violent resistance but has
>>>> subsequently and correctly drawn the conclusion that such violence
>>>> is not the answer; the violence, unsurprisingly, only stokes
>>>> legitimate fears among Israelis about their security.
>>>> Violence has been continuing in the unplanned, spontaneous, and
>>>> frustration-driven form of young people grabbing knives and stabbing
>>>> the first Israelis they can find. The Palestinian leadership has
>>>> turned to multilateral diplomacy, which, besides popular boycotts,
>>>> is about the only tool it has left. And the Israeli government does
>>>> everything it can to impede and to foil such diplomacy, as it is
>>>> trying to do now with the French initiative.
>>>> A common urge to sound impartial leads to the common refrain that
>>>> the Israeli-Palestinian conflict persists because neither side has
>>>> the political will to settle it. Nonsense. The overwhelming majority
>>>> of Palestinians do not want to continue to live under Israeli
>>>> occupation.
>>>> They have the will but not the power to settle.
>>>> There certainly are divisions and political weakness on the
>>>> Palestinian side
>>>> - of which the Israeli government has striven to prevent any repair,
>>>> such as in "punishing" the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority
>>>> through withholding tax revenue whenever it has moved toward
>>>> reconciliation with Hamas - but there is no significant
>>>> pro-occupation party among Palestinians.
>>>> The hardliners who control Israel policy have the power but - as
>>>> ample evidence, even without Avigdor Lieberman, has shown - not the
>>>> will, as long as third parties do not make them suffer any
>>>> meaningful consequences. They do want the occupation to continue.
>>>> The Netanyahu government's repeated claim that it wants to negotiate
>>>> with the Palestinians should be described as the charade that it is.
>>>> It is understandable that Palestinian leaders have no desire to
>>>> engage in talks that have no prospect of leading to anything, when
>>>> such engagement would just mean participating in the charade while
>>>> the occupation continues and more facts are built on the occupied
>>>> ground.
>>>> The insincerity is all the more obvious when Netanyahu speaks of
>>>> talks with "no preconditions" while at the same time insisting that
>>>> the Palestinians pronounce Israel to be a "Jewish state" - a
>>>> precondition that implicitly limits how the issue of Palestinian
>>>> refugees and right of return can be resolved, and also would mean
>>>> the Palestinian leadership formally signing on to a declaration that
>>>> non-Jewish Israelis are second-class citizens. Those are the only
>>>> things such a pronouncement would mean.
>>>> The Palestinian leadership long ago recognized, formally and
>>>> unequivocally, the state of Israel. As Palestinian leaders have
>>>> noted, that state is free to describe itself any way it wants.
>>>> With the American political system still wearing its usual
>>>> straitjacket on this issue, the main hope right now for taking any
>>>> steps out of this tragic situation lies with the French initiative.
>>>> If the United States is to do anything helpful any time in the
>>>> foreseeable future, it probably will have to come in the remaining
>>>> eight
>>> months of the Obama administration.
>>>> One of the two presumptive presidential nominees speaks of taking
>>>> U.S.-Israeli relations "to the next level" - and it is safe to
>>>> assume she doesn't mean that the next level will consist of imposing
>>>> consequences for the continued occupation.
>>>> The other presumptive presidential nominee caused nervous moments in
>>>> the Israel lobby when he talked about being impartial, but the
>>>> nerves were soothed with a speech to AIPAC that said all the "right"
>>>> things.
>>>> And now he has Sheldon Adelson and Adelson's heavyweight bankroll on
>>>> his side, with everything that implies for this nominee's future
>>>> posture on Israel-related issues if he were to be elected.
>>>>
>>>> Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency,
>>>> rose to be one of the agency's top analysts. He is now a visiting
>>>> professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This
>>>> article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest's Web
>>>> site.
>>>> Reprinted with author's
>>>> permission.)
>>>> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>>>> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Re: U.S immigration
Hello Mostafa,
It's been a while since I received a post from you, and when you send
no word I always fear for your well being . Are you living in, or
just visiting in Saudi Arabia?
I'm certain that I don't need to point out that Saudi Arabia has it's
own flaws. But like many of us living in the United States, we must
keep on keeping on regardless of our personal understanding of the
flawed government we live under.
So far as my understanding of Earth's history, there has never existed
a perfect government. Perhaps there can never be such a thing. But
that should not keep us from dreaming and striving toward that perfect
goal.
Building toward such a perfect government calls for two major changes
in our thinking and our behavior.
First, and most important, we must teach ourselves and our children to
respect all life on Earth. So far we can't even respect our own
specie. Instead of using our differences to celebrate our
individuality, we assign superior or inferior labels, and use our
differences to separate ourselves.
Worse than that, we have decided that we are superior to all other
life on this planet. We have come to believe that we control all that
we behold. We are masters of the universe. What Fools we truly are.
We must come to live in the Earth rather than on the Earth. Rather
than taking what we want, we must come to take care of that which
Nature has provided.
This brings me to my second change.
We Humans must learn to look Inward, rather than Outward for our
strength. Our ancestors, because of their great fear of the vastness
and complexity of this universe, created Super Humans. Gods. All
wise Beings who looked and behaved somewhat like we Humans, but had
super powers. Instead of reaching inside our own heads for the Human
wisdom, and building our knowledge base, we gave over control to these
Gods, and told stories, later putting them in written form, about the
origin and nature of our Gods.
As you know, we then began to fight among ourselves regarding whose
Gods were the true Gods. We came to a place where most of us worship
only one God. But the problem is that we each have a different One
God. We have been conditioned over generations, to fear questioning
our God. After all, each God has His special Book of Laws and Rules.
Every God in today's world offers the same two choices. Believe or be
Damned to eternal Hell.
Since no right thinking person wishes to risk spending eternity in
Hell, we strive to understand every facet of our God's Holy Word,
rejecting any thought that we might be defending the Wizard of Oz.
How can we look inward and trust our Human abilities when we are
frightened of denying our particular God? And yet, our Salvation lies
within, not without. Of all the Gods we ever created, none have been
strong enough to raise up their people and bring them to that Promised
Land.
If only we could spend as much time fanning the flames of our own
inner creative selves, rather than quaking before the images of our
Make Believe Gods, we would very likely have world peace, plentiful
food, decent shelter for all, jobs for everyone, and interplanetary
travel. I believe we have the capacity to achieve all of that, and
more. But it will call for us to turn our eyes inward and behold the
real God in each of us.
Do stay safe, Mostafa.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/23/16, Mostafa <mostafa.almahdy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear prestigious recipients, peace and blessings.
>
>
>
> Immigration to the United States was and still a tremendous ambition for
> many people around the world.
>
>
>
> Recently, U.S officials started to complain about the crisis of what they
> call illegal immigration, intending to put pause.
>
>
>
> Well, if you wouldn't mind folks, I may have a standpoint on this.
>
>
>
> The United States was found 242 years ago.
>
>
>
> Each and everyone in this country is actually an immigrant.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, your great grandfathers viciously enslaved and brutally
> murdered original habitants.
>
>
>
> They exterminated them by genocide and unethical maltreatment.
>
>
>
> Subsequently, they forcefully settled there and then, claimed genuine
> inhabitance.
>
>
>
> If people forget, history doesn't.
>
>
>
> I think we desperately demand to critically reconsider what the United
> States stands for.
>
>
>
> This country has been constantly claiming human rights, equality,
> substantiality and unparalleled liberty.
>
>
>
> Well, it may look so pleasant ostensibly but practically, it plainly
> doesn't.
>
>
>
> The claim that the United States resembles unrivaled justice is
> demonstratively fallacious.
>
>
>
> U.S immigration policy is intemperately susceptible.
>
>
>
> It doesn't stand for anything reliable.
>
>
>
> I really feel sorry for those who chase acquiring U.S citizenship.
>
>
>
> They leave everything behind them to chase a fog, what a disarray.
>
>
>
> I believe that the United States is the biggest deceit in human history.
>
>
>
> It looks so bright from its outward surface, but inwardly it is heavily
> distorted.
>
>
>
> I am not particularly in favour of those who tend to americanise their
> character to be recognised.
>
>
>
> I stridently oppose altering identity for this.
>
>
>
> The United States demands international prosecuting authority to determine
> its controversially leading stance.
>
>
>
> The settlement of the United States was essentially based on larceny and
> fraudulence.
>
>
>
> This is why getting permanent U.S citizenship is so easy, because it
> actually doesn't belong to them.
>
>
>
> Their great grandfathers stoled it.
>
>
>
> Therefore, it is unremarkably convenient for them to smoothly pass it on to
> others.
>
>
>
> Why acquiring permanent citizenship in the UK is so complicated?
>
>
>
> Because they genuinely believe they are the actual possessors of this land.
>
>
>
> They won't ever grand their citizenship to someone who was simply born
> there.
>
>
>
> The United States gives instant citizenship to newly born individuals, even
> if they haven't spent couple of weeks in the country.
>
>
>
> This policy is resultant of how this country were initially found.
>
>
>
> Further amazingly, the United States calls for restricting immigration
> now.
>
>
>
> That is tremendously preposterous.
>
>
>
> How could you possibly restrict immigration while you all are really
> immigrants in the first place?
>
>
>
> I won't hypocritically endorse the United States for its theft and
> savagery.
>
>
>
> New generations are perfectly unaware of how their country was found.
>
>
>
> I highly encourage them to read about American history and let's forget
> whatever you were told in typical history textbooks at school.
>
>
>
> Reality bites, but truth is truth.
>
>
>
> I am not attempting to sound assaultive by this.
>
>
>
> I just intend to put everything in the proper position.
>
>
>
> I never hated the United States for what it stands for.
>
>
>
> The United States declaration of independence and the constitution, both are
> considered good example for contemporary democracy.
>
>
>
> The problem however, that the United States doesn't sufficiently stand for
> what it claims.
>
>
>
> There is considerable racism and cultural manipulation in the country.
>
>
>
> I call sensible and just Americans to act quickly regarding proposing proper
> immigration reform.
>
>
>
> At its inception, you ought to suspend permitting the use of hate rhetoric
> in the name of counterfeit free speech.
>
>
>
> Second, please, open the boundaries for your kids.
>
>
>
> Let them be sufficiently exposed to various cultures and traditions.
>
>
>
> The United States is enormously insulated.
>
>
>
> When people migrate to the U.S, they don't find many cultures to communicate
> through.
>
>
>
> They forcefully are melted into one culture, which is Americanisation.
>
>
>
> Americanisation is assimilation into American character, essence, culture,
> entity and identity.
>
>
>
> I don't oppose American culture wholely.
>
>
>
> I permeate its factors, I approve reciprocal principles and I decline
> infringing concepts.
>
>
>
> This post hasn't intended to be thorough.
>
>
>
> I just wanted to express my opinion regarding U.S immigration, people
> immigrating to the U.S.
>
>
>
> I hope you may earnestly consider this proposition.
>
>
>
> If you really want to positively reconcile with the rest of the world, you
> may open your boundaries and let cultures be independently represented,
> instead of melting them all into your culture.
>
>
>
> You ought to decease prejudice and slanting, if you truly want to
> communicate with the rest of the world.
>
>
>
> I believe in highly potential American reconciliation with the rest of the
> world, only if most American were like Alison Mueller, my American Mormon
> friend.
>
>
>
> She resides in Utah.
>
>
>
> she is polite, respectful, interculturally involved, quite friendly,
> intellectually distinguished, devout and well, truly American as applepie,
>
>
>
>
> Warm regards from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
>
>
>
> Mostafa
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best wishes.
>
> It's always hope that gives meaning to life.
>
> ___________________________________
ZHello Mostafa,
It's been a while since I received a post from you, and when you send
no word I always fear for your well being . Are you living in, or
just visiting in Saudi Arabia?
I'm certain that I don't need to point out that Saudi Arabia has it's
own flaws. But like many of us living in the United States, we must
keep on keeping on regardless of our personal understanding of the
flawed government we live under.
So far as my understanding of Earth's history, there has never existed
a perfect government. Perhaps there can never be such a thing. But
that should not keep us from dreaming and striving toward that perfect
goal.
Building toward such a perfect government calls for two major changes
in our thinking and our behavior.
First, and most important, we must teach ourselves and our children to
respect all life on Earth. So far we can't even respect our own
specie. Instead of using our differences to celebrate our
individuality, we assign superior or inferior labels, and use our
differences to separate ourselves.
Worse than that, we have decided that we are superior to all other
life on this planet. We have come to believe that we control all that
we behold. We are masters of the universe. What Fools we truly are.
We must come to live in the Earth rather than on the Earth. Rather
than taking what we want, we must come to take care of that which
Nature has provided.
This brings me to my second change.
We Humans must learn to look Inward, rather than Outward for our
strength. Our ancestors, because of their great fear of the vastness
and complexity of this universe, created Super Humans. Gods. All
wise Beings who looked and behaved somewhat like we Humans, but had
super powers. Instead of reaching inside our own heads for the Human
wisdom, and building our knowledge base, we gave over control to these
Gods, and told stories, later putting them in written form, about the
origin and nature of our Gods.
As you know, we then began to fight among ourselves regarding whose
Gods were the true Gods. We came to a place where most of us worship
only one God. But the problem is that we each have a different One
God. We have been conditioned over generations, to fear questioning
our God. After all, each God has His special Book of Laws and Rules.
Every God in today's world offers the same two choices. Believe or be
Damned to eternal Hell.
Since no right thinking person wishes to risk spending eternity in
Hell, we strive to understand every facet of our God's Holy Word,
rejecting any thought that we might be defending the Wizard of Oz.
How can we look inward and trust our Human abilities when we are
frightened of denying our particular God? And yet, our Salvation lies
within, not without. Of all the Gods we ever created, none have been
strong enough to raise up their people and bring them to that Promised
Land.
If only we could spend as much time fanning the flames of our own
inner creative selves, rather than quaking before the images of our
Make Believe Gods, we would very likely have world peace, plentiful
food, decent shelter for all, jobs for everyone, and interplanetary
travel. I believe we have the capacity to achieve all of that, and
more. But it will call for us to turn our eyes inward and behold the
real God in each of us.
Do stay safe, Mostafa.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/23/16, Mostafa <mostafa.almahdy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear prestigious recipients, peace and blessings.
>
>
>
> Immigration to the United States was and still a tremendous ambition for
> many people around the world.
>
>
>
> Recently, U.S officials started to complain about the crisis of what they
> call illegal immigration, intending to put pause.
>
>
>
> Well, if you wouldn't mind folks, I may have a standpoint on this.
>
>
>
> The United States was found 242 years ago.
>
>
>
> Each and everyone in this country is actually an immigrant.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, your great grandfathers viciously enslaved and brutally
> murdered original habitants.
>
>
>
> They exterminated them by genocide and unethical maltreatment.
>
>
>
> Subsequently, they forcefully settled there and then, claimed genuine
> inhabitance.
>
>
>
> If people forget, history doesn't.
>
>
>
> I think we desperately demand to critically reconsider what the United
> States stands for.
>
>
>
> This country has been constantly claiming human rights, equality,
> substantiality and unparalleled liberty.
>
>
>
> Well, it may look so pleasant ostensibly but practically, it plainly
> doesn't.
>
>
>
> The claim that the United States resembles unrivaled justice is
> demonstratively fallacious.
>
>
>
> U.S immigration policy is intemperately susceptible.
>
>
>
> It doesn't stand for anything reliable.
>
>
>
> I really feel sorry for those who chase acquiring U.S citizenship.
>
>
>
> They leave everything behind them to chase a fog, what a disarray.
>
>
>
> I believe that the United States is the biggest deceit in human history.
>
>
>
> It looks so bright from its outward surface, but inwardly it is heavily
> distorted.
>
>
>
> I am not particularly in favour of those who tend to americanise their
> character to be recognised.
>
>
>
> I stridently oppose altering identity for this.
>
>
>
> The United States demands international prosecuting authority to determine
> its controversially leading stance.
>
>
>
> The settlement of the United States was essentially based on larceny and
> fraudulence.
>
>
>
> This is why getting permanent U.S citizenship is so easy, because it
> actually doesn't belong to them.
>
>
>
> Their great grandfathers stoled it.
>
>
>
> Therefore, it is unremarkably convenient for them to smoothly pass it on to
> others.
>
>
>
> Why acquiring permanent citizenship in the UK is so complicated?
>
>
>
> Because they genuinely believe they are the actual possessors of this land.
>
>
>
> They won't ever grand their citizenship to someone who was simply born
> there.
>
>
>
> The United States gives instant citizenship to newly born individuals, even
> if they haven't spent couple of weeks in the country.
>
>
>
> This policy is resultant of how this country were initially found.
>
>
>
> Further amazingly, the United States calls for restricting immigration
> now.
>
>
>
> That is tremendously preposterous.
>
>
>
> How could you possibly restrict immigration while you all are really
> immigrants in the first place?
>
>
>
> I won't hypocritically endorse the United States for its theft and
> savagery.
>
>
>
> New generations are perfectly unaware of how their country was found.
>
>
>
> I highly encourage them to read about American history and let's forget
> whatever you were told in typical history textbooks at school.
>
>
>
> Reality bites, but truth is truth.
>
>
>
> I am not attempting to sound assaultive by this.
>
>
>
> I just intend to put everything in the proper position.
>
>
>
> I never hated the United States for what it stands for.
>
>
>
> The United States declaration of independence and the constitution, both are
> considered good example for contemporary democracy.
>
>
>
> The problem however, that the United States doesn't sufficiently stand for
> what it claims.
>
>
>
> There is considerable racism and cultural manipulation in the country.
>
>
>
> I call sensible and just Americans to act quickly regarding proposing proper
> immigration reform.
>
>
>
> At its inception, you ought to suspend permitting the use of hate rhetoric
> in the name of counterfeit free speech.
>
>
>
> Second, please, open the boundaries for your kids.
>
>
>
> Let them be sufficiently exposed to various cultures and traditions.
>
>
>
> The United States is enormously insulated.
>
>
>
> When people migrate to the U.S, they don't find many cultures to communicate
> through.
>
>
>
> They forcefully are melted into one culture, which is Americanisation.
>
>
>
> Americanisation is assimilation into American character, essence, culture,
> entity and identity.
>
>
>
> I don't oppose American culture wholely.
>
>
>
> I permeate its factors, I approve reciprocal principles and I decline
> infringing concepts.
>
>
>
> This post hasn't intended to be thorough.
>
>
>
> I just wanted to express my opinion regarding U.S immigration, people
> immigrating to the U.S.
>
>
>
> I hope you may earnestly consider this proposition.
>
>
>
> If you really want to positively reconcile with the rest of the world, you
> may open your boundaries and let cultures be independently represented,
> instead of melting them all into your culture.
>
>
>
> You ought to decease prejudice and slanting, if you truly want to
> communicate with the rest of the world.
>
>
>
> I believe in highly potential American reconciliation with the rest of the
> world, only if most American were like Alison Mueller, my American Mormon
> friend.
>
>
>
> She resides in Utah.
>
>
>
> she is polite, respectful, interculturally involved, quite friendly,
> intellectually distinguished, devout and well, truly American as applepie,
>
>
>
>
> Warm regards from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
>
>
>
> Mostafa
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best wishes.
>
> It's always hope that gives meaning to life.
>
> ___________________________________
ZHello Mostafa,
Re: [blind-democracy] Nabisco workers protest layoffs and downsizing
Meanwhile, president Barak Obama is in Vietnam, promoting his "NAFTA
on Steroids".
I understand that it is difficult for workers, laid off after years of
service, to keep from laying the blame at the feet of the poorly paid
workers in Mexico and other poverty-stricken nations. But we must
find ways of focusing their attention on the real oppressors, the
out-of-control International Corporate Corporations. Corporate
Capitalism is sucking the life out of the World's Working Class.
Turning us against one another is what Corporate Capitalism does best.
And when will we get the message through the heads of working class
people that our so called leaders are not our brightest minds. We
need to ask ourselves, what sort of smarts are involved in piling up
untold riches when the very act of thievery is causing the entire
Planet Earth to become a dead rock? How will their great wealth
protect them then? I know we cannot expect to throw off our chains
overnight, but time is running out. I fear for my grand children and
their children, if any still exist.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/24/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
> https://socialistaction.org/2016/05/23/nabisco-workers-protest-layoffs-and-downsizing/
>
>
> Nabisco workers protest layoffs and downsizing
>
> / 17 hours ago
>
>
>
>
>
>
> June 2016 Nabisco 1
>
> By MARK UGOLINI
>
> A spirited and determined group of about 150 current and former Nabisco
> bakery workers and their supporters demonstrated on May 18 at Mondelez
> International's annual shareholder meeting in Lincolnshire, Ill. Workers
> protested the company's decision to lay off 600 of the 1200 workers at
> its Southwest side Chicago plant.
>
> Mondelez International is the parent company of Nabisco, which makes
> snack foods including Oreo cookies and Ritz crackers. They have recently
> opened a modern plant in Salinas, Mexico, where they have invested $130
> million, and plan to transfer some of the Chicago Nabisco plant's
> production there. In 2015, Mondelez posted over $30 billion in revenue.
>
> The protest was organized by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers
> and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) and its Chicago Local 300,
> which represents most of the workers at the Chicago plant.
>
> BCTGM workers from locals in Cleveland; Atlanta, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and
> Battle Creek, Mich., participated, as well as supporters from the
> Chicago Teachers Union, UAW local 551, Fight for $15, and Jobs for Justice.
>
> Prior to a rally, I spoke with BCTGM Local 300 President Edward Burpo,
> who described what the union is facing: "277 received their notification
> of pink slip on Jan. 19. They were let go on March 23. Another 43 have
> received their notification of pink slip and they are designated to be
> let go on May 27." He told me that the union expects another round of
> layoffs prior to Labor Day, and by the end of the year a total of 600
> bakery workers will have lost their jobs.
>
> "They are downsizing the plant itself," Burpo said, "At the end of July
> we should be downsized from 17 lines to six, and the equipment is
> already being taken out."
>
> Workers at the protest were demanding that Mondelez shareholders reverse
> the decision of CEO Irene Rosenfeld and reinstate the laid-off workers.
> A delegation of union members went inside the shareholders meeting to
> present their case.
>
> Reporting on the shareholders meeting, the Chicago Tribune said that for
> the first time since the layoffs were announced, Rosenfeld fielded
> questions from laid-off workers. Many of the questions pertained to the
> company's massive profits and Rosenfeld's obscenely high compensation.
>
> At the rally outside Jethro Head, International Vice-President of
> BCTGM-Midwest told the crowd: "We are here this morning to identify the
> core of corporate greed. … In essence we are here to indict
> Mondelez-Nabisco [CEO] Irene Rosenfeld for corporate gluttony, an
> obsessive and outrageous feeding at America's economic trough. Today,
> Irene Rosenfeld will receive another $20 million payday. That means she
> will have been paid $185 million in the last nine years. That ain't all,
> my sisters and brothers. In her back pocket she's got another $35
> million pension."
>
> I spoke briefly with 51-year-old Rodney Beasley, one of the laid-off
> workers hoping his job and those of his co-workers would be reinstated.
> Beasley worked eight years for Nabisco, and prior to that, 23 years with
> Nabisco's sister company, Entenmann's Bakery. He told me: "They [the
> union] are doing whatever they can to keep our jobs. Right now they are
> currently in negotiations with the company … on the contract and to get
> as many of us back to work as possible. … That's our hope and our prayer."
>
> Apparently, Rosenfeld has already dashed these hopes. The Chicago
> Tribune reported on her comments during the shareholders meeting:
> "Rosenfeld emphasized that the jobs were cut and not coming back."
>
> Unfortunately, some speakers and some signs and banners at the rally
> conveyed a nationalistic "America First" and protectionist "Buy
> American" tone. Said Jethro Head, reflecting the view of the
> International union leadership: "Let's send a message across the
> country—Do Not Buy Mexican-made Nabisco Products!" He then led the crowd
> in chanting, "Mexico Hell No!" Many in the crowd did not participate in
> this chant.
>
> The problem with this approach is that it appeals to American
> chauvinism, and paints Mexican workers as the enemy of working people in
> this country. It poses the issue as one of competition between Mexican
> and U.S. workers, and aids ruling-class efforts to divide working people
> from each other.
>
> In fact, our struggle is one with Mexican workers in demanding that our
> capitalist governments provide good jobs for all and union rights
> regardless of which side of the boarder we happen to live on.
> Revolutionary socialists are internationalists, working to build
> solidarity among workers everywhere.
>
> To fight against unemployment and for good paying jobs, we demand
> government-funded public-works programs. These can rebuild badly needed
> infrastructure, build things we need—like housing and schools—and put
> millions of unemployed back to work at union wages.
>
> This program includes immigrant workers as well. Part of the struggle is
> to demand an end to deportations and all forms of scapegoating of
> immigrant workers, and to extend to them "legal protections" afforded to
> other citizens.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Share this:
>
> Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
> Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
> Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
>
>
> May 23, 2016 in Chicago, Immigration, Labor, Uncategorized. Tags:
> Mondalez, Nabisco
>
>
> Related posts
>
>
>
> Boycott Stella D'oro
>
>
>
> Stella D'Oro Workers Face October Shutdown
>
>
>
> Support UE Occupation Against Republic Windows
>
>
> Post navigation
>
> ← Eye in the Sky
>
>
>
> Newspaper Archives
> Newspaper Archives Select Month May 2016 (7) April 2016 (12) March
> 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015 (11)
> November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10) August 2015
> (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12) March
> 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12)
> November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August 2014
> (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014 (10)
> March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December 2013
> (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13) August
> 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April 2013
> (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17) December
> 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2)
> August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19) April
> 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
> December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
> 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011
> (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January 2011
> (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September
> 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (9)
> April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9)
> December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009 (16) September 2009
> (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April
> 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December
> 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14)
> August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April
> 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
> December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
> April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11)
> November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15) August 2006
> (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March
> 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
> November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August 2005
> (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
> March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December 2004
> (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August
> 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
> 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24)
> September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17)
> September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June 2000 (26)
> May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000 (18)
> January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October 1999
> (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999
> (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
> (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
>
> Search
>
>
> Get Involved
> Donate to help support our work
> Get email updates
> Join Socialist Action
>
> View socialistactionusa's profile on Facebook
> View SocialistActionCT's profile on YouTube
>
>
> Subscribe to Our Newspaper
>
>
>
> Blog at WordPress.com. The Expound Theme.
>
>
>
>
>
on Steroids".
I understand that it is difficult for workers, laid off after years of
service, to keep from laying the blame at the feet of the poorly paid
workers in Mexico and other poverty-stricken nations. But we must
find ways of focusing their attention on the real oppressors, the
out-of-control International Corporate Corporations. Corporate
Capitalism is sucking the life out of the World's Working Class.
Turning us against one another is what Corporate Capitalism does best.
And when will we get the message through the heads of working class
people that our so called leaders are not our brightest minds. We
need to ask ourselves, what sort of smarts are involved in piling up
untold riches when the very act of thievery is causing the entire
Planet Earth to become a dead rock? How will their great wealth
protect them then? I know we cannot expect to throw off our chains
overnight, but time is running out. I fear for my grand children and
their children, if any still exist.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/24/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
> https://socialistaction.org/2016/05/23/nabisco-workers-protest-layoffs-and-downsizing/
>
>
> Nabisco workers protest layoffs and downsizing
>
> / 17 hours ago
>
>
>
>
>
>
> June 2016 Nabisco 1
>
> By MARK UGOLINI
>
> A spirited and determined group of about 150 current and former Nabisco
> bakery workers and their supporters demonstrated on May 18 at Mondelez
> International's annual shareholder meeting in Lincolnshire, Ill. Workers
> protested the company's decision to lay off 600 of the 1200 workers at
> its Southwest side Chicago plant.
>
> Mondelez International is the parent company of Nabisco, which makes
> snack foods including Oreo cookies and Ritz crackers. They have recently
> opened a modern plant in Salinas, Mexico, where they have invested $130
> million, and plan to transfer some of the Chicago Nabisco plant's
> production there. In 2015, Mondelez posted over $30 billion in revenue.
>
> The protest was organized by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers
> and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) and its Chicago Local 300,
> which represents most of the workers at the Chicago plant.
>
> BCTGM workers from locals in Cleveland; Atlanta, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and
> Battle Creek, Mich., participated, as well as supporters from the
> Chicago Teachers Union, UAW local 551, Fight for $15, and Jobs for Justice.
>
> Prior to a rally, I spoke with BCTGM Local 300 President Edward Burpo,
> who described what the union is facing: "277 received their notification
> of pink slip on Jan. 19. They were let go on March 23. Another 43 have
> received their notification of pink slip and they are designated to be
> let go on May 27." He told me that the union expects another round of
> layoffs prior to Labor Day, and by the end of the year a total of 600
> bakery workers will have lost their jobs.
>
> "They are downsizing the plant itself," Burpo said, "At the end of July
> we should be downsized from 17 lines to six, and the equipment is
> already being taken out."
>
> Workers at the protest were demanding that Mondelez shareholders reverse
> the decision of CEO Irene Rosenfeld and reinstate the laid-off workers.
> A delegation of union members went inside the shareholders meeting to
> present their case.
>
> Reporting on the shareholders meeting, the Chicago Tribune said that for
> the first time since the layoffs were announced, Rosenfeld fielded
> questions from laid-off workers. Many of the questions pertained to the
> company's massive profits and Rosenfeld's obscenely high compensation.
>
> At the rally outside Jethro Head, International Vice-President of
> BCTGM-Midwest told the crowd: "We are here this morning to identify the
> core of corporate greed. … In essence we are here to indict
> Mondelez-Nabisco [CEO] Irene Rosenfeld for corporate gluttony, an
> obsessive and outrageous feeding at America's economic trough. Today,
> Irene Rosenfeld will receive another $20 million payday. That means she
> will have been paid $185 million in the last nine years. That ain't all,
> my sisters and brothers. In her back pocket she's got another $35
> million pension."
>
> I spoke briefly with 51-year-old Rodney Beasley, one of the laid-off
> workers hoping his job and those of his co-workers would be reinstated.
> Beasley worked eight years for Nabisco, and prior to that, 23 years with
> Nabisco's sister company, Entenmann's Bakery. He told me: "They [the
> union] are doing whatever they can to keep our jobs. Right now they are
> currently in negotiations with the company … on the contract and to get
> as many of us back to work as possible. … That's our hope and our prayer."
>
> Apparently, Rosenfeld has already dashed these hopes. The Chicago
> Tribune reported on her comments during the shareholders meeting:
> "Rosenfeld emphasized that the jobs were cut and not coming back."
>
> Unfortunately, some speakers and some signs and banners at the rally
> conveyed a nationalistic "America First" and protectionist "Buy
> American" tone. Said Jethro Head, reflecting the view of the
> International union leadership: "Let's send a message across the
> country—Do Not Buy Mexican-made Nabisco Products!" He then led the crowd
> in chanting, "Mexico Hell No!" Many in the crowd did not participate in
> this chant.
>
> The problem with this approach is that it appeals to American
> chauvinism, and paints Mexican workers as the enemy of working people in
> this country. It poses the issue as one of competition between Mexican
> and U.S. workers, and aids ruling-class efforts to divide working people
> from each other.
>
> In fact, our struggle is one with Mexican workers in demanding that our
> capitalist governments provide good jobs for all and union rights
> regardless of which side of the boarder we happen to live on.
> Revolutionary socialists are internationalists, working to build
> solidarity among workers everywhere.
>
> To fight against unemployment and for good paying jobs, we demand
> government-funded public-works programs. These can rebuild badly needed
> infrastructure, build things we need—like housing and schools—and put
> millions of unemployed back to work at union wages.
>
> This program includes immigrant workers as well. Part of the struggle is
> to demand an end to deportations and all forms of scapegoating of
> immigrant workers, and to extend to them "legal protections" afforded to
> other citizens.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Share this:
>
> Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
> Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
> Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
>
>
> May 23, 2016 in Chicago, Immigration, Labor, Uncategorized. Tags:
> Mondalez, Nabisco
>
>
> Related posts
>
>
>
> Boycott Stella D'oro
>
>
>
> Stella D'Oro Workers Face October Shutdown
>
>
>
> Support UE Occupation Against Republic Windows
>
>
> Post navigation
>
> ← Eye in the Sky
>
>
>
> Newspaper Archives
> Newspaper Archives Select Month May 2016 (7) April 2016 (12) March
> 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015 (11)
> November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10) August 2015
> (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12) March
> 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12)
> November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August 2014
> (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014 (10)
> March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December 2013
> (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13) August
> 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April 2013
> (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17) December
> 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2)
> August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19) April
> 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
> December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
> 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011
> (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January 2011
> (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September
> 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (9)
> April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9)
> December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009 (16) September 2009
> (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April
> 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December
> 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14)
> August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April
> 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
> December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
> April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11)
> November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15) August 2006
> (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March
> 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
> November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August 2005
> (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
> March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December 2004
> (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August
> 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
> 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24)
> September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17)
> September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June 2000 (26)
> May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000 (18)
> January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October 1999
> (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999
> (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
> (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
>
> Search
>
>
> Get Involved
> Donate to help support our work
> Get email updates
> Join Socialist Action
>
> View socialistactionusa's profile on Facebook
> View SocialistActionCT's profile on YouTube
>
>
> Subscribe to Our Newspaper
>
>
>
> Blog at WordPress.com. The Expound Theme.
>
>
>
>
>
Friday, May 20, 2016
Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans Receive Funding From Industries That Would Be Affected
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 08:03:21 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare
Plans Receive Funding From Industries That Would Be Affected
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
No surprises here. What is puzzling is how so many working class
Americans buy into the attack on single payer health insurance.
I know that many folks argue that we can't afford such an expense, but
they don't seem to have a problem with the huge profits creamed off by
the "protectors" of our nation's health.
Currently the life expectancy for USA is, as of 2012, 78 years for
females and 74 years for males. Now that's pretty good when compared
to the average back when FDR signed Social Security into law in 1935.
Women lived an average of 67 years and men an average of 63. Notice
that the retirement age of 65 was two years higher than the average
life expectancy of men? And remember, FDR died at the ripe old age of
63, still too young to collect his first SS check.
But compared to the life expectancy around the world, the USA is, if
memory serves me, around 34th. We're nestled just below Costa Rica,
and just above Qatar.
More than 30 nations are doing something better than we are. And for
the most part they are doing it at less of a financial drain. Even our
once highly regarded Veterans Care has fallen on hard times.
Okay, so if I were born with a silver spoon in my kissable baby mouth,
I'd understand growing up believing I and "My People" were simply
brighter than the Riff Raff. They were placed here by God Almighty
to serve and pleasure me.
But where, in all that is sane, is the thinking of working folks who
go along stooping and kissing the hem of the garment of their
corporate masters?
This must be the great riddle that we must solve before we are freed
from our bondage.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/20/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Excerpt: "Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders'
> healthcare proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute,
> the two major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center, have received big
> contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries -
> industries whose profits could be reduced by Sanders' single-payer
> Medicare-for-all plan."
>
> Madonna Rea shakes hands with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
> Sanders as he has breakfast at Peppy Grill in Indianapolis, May 3, 2016.
> (photo: Getty)
>
>
> Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans Receive Funding From Industries
> That Would Be Affected
> By Clark Mindock and David Sirota, International Business Times
> 19 May 16
>
> Soon after the Tax Policy Center released its analysis of Bernie Sanders'
> tax and healthcare plans last week, the negative headlines began to pile up
> about the Vermont lawmaker's push to extend Medicare coverage to all
> Americans. Though a new Gallup poll shows Sanders' plan is widely popular,
> news outlets across the country pounced on one of the findings, which said
> the plan would increase the U.S. budget deficit by some $18 trillion
> between
> 2017 and 2026. One paper, the Washington Post, posted Sanders stories in
> just seven hours.
> Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders' healthcare
> proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, the two
> major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center, have received big
> contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries -
> industries whose profits could be reduced by Sanders' single-payer
> Medicare-for-all plan. That is on top of money the groups have received
> from
> Wall Street firms , fossil fuel companies, efforts connected to the
> billionaire Charles Koch, a foundation founded by the heirs to the Walmart
> fortune and others that Sanders has criticized.
> The health industry donors to the think tanks include:
> . Health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts delivered
> between $300,000 and $600,000 in 2012 and 2014 to the Urban Institute,
> while
> insurer UnitedHealthcare gave Brookings between $2 million and $4 million
> since 2012.
>
> . Several of the country's top drug manufacturers and suppliers gave
> to Brookings. The think tank's donors include the Roche Group (donated
> between $1 million and $2 million since 2012), Sanofi ($125,000 to
> $250,000)
> and Amgen ($100,000 to $200,000).
>
> . Two foundations connected to the pharmaceutical industry also gave
> generously. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - which was started by a
> Johnson & Johnson founder in 1972 - gave between $210,000 and $525,000 to
> Brookings and an undisclosed amount above $3 million since 2012 to Urban.
> The foundation for global pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb gave
> between $55,000 and $125,000 to Brookings.
>
> . MetLife, which has some health-related insurance business, gave a
> combined $300,000 to $750,000 to Brookings in 2013 , 2014 and 2015 .
> Brookings and Urban both told International Business Times that their
> scholars conduct their research based on objective information and
> analysis,
> and that their institutions take measures to ensure independence. Both
> noted
> that their organizations have diverse funding and that they have policies
> against allowing funders to determine research results.
> "Brookings' independence is critical to the promise we make to provide
> objective, fact-based research, and we have robust policies in place to
> ensure that independence, which we routinely review to maintain the highest
> standards for safeguarding it. We have a diverse funding base and no
> person,
> entity, or industry influences the research or recommendations produced by
> Brookings scholars," David Nassar, the vice president of communications at
> the Brookings Institution, wrote in a statement to IBT.
> The Urban Institute explained its funding sources in greater detail. Laura
> Greenback, Urban's media relations manager, told IBT in an email that Urban
> receives 49 percent of its funding from government sources, usually in a
> competitive bidding process. Beyond that, researchers are also supported by
> the foundation (43 percent of funding last year), other nonprofits (5
> percent), as well as trustees, individuals, corporations and universities
> (1
> percent each).
> "Urban's policies ensure researcher independence and guarantee that no
> funder shall determine research findings, insights, or conclusions of our
> experts," Greenback wrote. "Our scholars are independent and empowered to
> share their evidence-based views and recommendations shaped by research.
> The
> Urban Institute doesn't take official positions on issues, nor does it have
> an advocacy agenda of any kind."
> The Tax Policy Center has also released analysis of several other
> candidates' tax plans, including Sanders' primary foe, Hillary Clinton.
> (Their analysis said her tax increases would target the top 1 percent of
> taxpayers, and noted that marginal tax rates would go up, "reducing
> incentives to work, save and invest." )
> In recent months, several reports have raised new questions about the power
> of so-called cognitive capture - scenarios in which organizations that
> represent themselves as nonpartisan or academic, but which are funded by
> industries that could be affected by the studies, help shape research and
> the public debate. Brookings, in particular, has faced some of the toughest
> scrutiny: In October, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat,
> questioned whether an economist with Brookings who conducted a study was
> unduly affected by cozy relationships with Wall Street and the funding
> behind his research. A 2014 report, too, noted that pension reform-minded
> reports from Brookings were sponsored by the Laura and John Arnold
> Foundation, which has pushed to reduce guaranteed retirement benefits for
> public workers.
> The Tax Policy Center report noted that spending under Sanders' plan could
> add as much as $33.3 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years, which
> dwarfs the current $14 trillion in debt currently owed by the federal
> government. Opponents of Sanders' plan say that such spending, if not
> offset
> by other revenues, would send the economy into a strong downward spiral.
> The Sanders campaign has said those estimates assume a much more expensive
> healthcare system than the candidate expects, and says low- and
> middle-income households would end up saving thousands of dollars a year.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> Madonna Rea shakes hands with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
> Sanders as he has breakfast at Peppy Grill in Indianapolis, May 3, 2016.
> (photo: Getty)
> http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/bernie-sanders-tax-healthcare-plans
> -think-tanks-released-critical-study-receivehttp://www.ibtimes.com/political
> -capital/bernie-sanders-tax-healthcare-plans-think-tanks-released-critical-s
> tudy-receive
> Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans Receive Funding From Industries
> That Would Be Affected
> By Clark Mindock and David Sirota, International Business Times
> 19 May 16
> oon after the Tax Policy Center released its analysis of Bernie Sanders'
> tax and healthcare plans last week, the negative headlines began to pile up
> about the Vermont lawmaker's push to extend Medicare coverage to all
> Americans. Though a new Gallup poll shows Sanders' plan is widely popular,
> news outlets across the country pounced on one of the findings, which said
> the plan would increase the U.S. budget deficit by some $18 trillion
> between
> 2017 and 2026. One paper, the Washington Post, posted Sanders stories in
> just seven hours.
> Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders' healthcare
> proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, the two
> major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center, have received big
> contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries -
> industries whose profits could be reduced by Sanders' single-payer
> Medicare-for-all plan. That is on top of money the groups have received
> from
> Wall Street firms , fossil fuel companies, efforts connected to the
> billionaire Charles Koch, a foundation founded by the heirs to the Walmart
> fortune and others that Sanders has criticized.
> The health industry donors to the think tanks include:
> . Health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts delivered
> between $300,000 and $600,000 in 2012 and 2014 to the Urban Institute,
> while
> insurer UnitedHealthcare gave Brookings between $2 million and $4 million
> since 2012.
> . Several of the country's top drug manufacturers and suppliers gave
> to Brookings. The think tank's donors include the Roche Group (donated
> between $1 million and $2 million since 2012), Sanofi ($125,000 to
> $250,000)
> and Amgen ($100,000 to $200,000).
> . Two foundations connected to the pharmaceutical industry also gave
> generously. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - which was started by a
> Johnson & Johnson founder in 1972 - gave between $210,000 and $525,000 to
> Brookings and an undisclosed amount above $3 million since 2012 to Urban.
> The foundation for global pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb gave
> between $55,000 and $125,000 to Brookings.
> . MetLife, which has some health-related insurance business, gave a
> combined $300,000 to $750,000 to Brookings in 2013 , 2014 and 2015 .
> Brookings and Urban both told International Business Times that their
> scholars conduct their research based on objective information and
> analysis,
> and that their institutions take measures to ensure independence. Both
> noted
> that their organizations have diverse funding and that they have policies
> against allowing funders to determine research results.
> "Brookings' independence is critical to the promise we make to provide
> objective, fact-based research, and we have robust policies in place to
> ensure that independence, which we routinely review to maintain the highest
> standards for safeguarding it. We have a diverse funding base and no
> person,
> entity, or industry influences the research or recommendations produced by
> Brookings scholars," David Nassar, the vice president of communications at
> the Brookings Institution, wrote in a statement to IBT.
> The Urban Institute explained its funding sources in greater detail. Laura
> Greenback, Urban's media relations manager, told IBT in an email that Urban
> receives 49 percent of its funding from government sources, usually in a
> competitive bidding process. Beyond that, researchers are also supported by
> the foundation (43 percent of funding last year), other nonprofits (5
> percent), as well as trustees, individuals, corporations and universities
> (1
> percent each).
> "Urban's policies ensure researcher independence and guarantee that no
> funder shall determine research findings, insights, or conclusions of our
> experts," Greenback wrote. "Our scholars are independent and empowered to
> share their evidence-based views and recommendations shaped by research.
> The
> Urban Institute doesn't take official positions on issues, nor does it have
> an advocacy agenda of any kind."
> The Tax Policy Center has also released analysis of several other
> candidates' tax plans, including Sanders' primary foe, Hillary Clinton.
> (Their analysis said her tax increases would target the top 1 percent of
> taxpayers, and noted that marginal tax rates would go up, "reducing
> incentives to work, save and invest." )
> In recent months, several reports have raised new questions about the power
> of so-called cognitive capture - scenarios in which organizations that
> represent themselves as nonpartisan or academic, but which are funded by
> industries that could be affected by the studies, help shape research and
> the public debate. Brookings, in particular, has faced some of the toughest
> scrutiny: In October, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat,
> questioned whether an economist with Brookings who conducted a study was
> unduly affected by cozy relationships with Wall Street and the funding
> behind his research. A 2014 report, too, noted that pension reform-minded
> reports from Brookings were sponsored by the Laura and John Arnold
> Foundation, which has pushed to reduce guaranteed retirement benefits for
> public workers.
> The Tax Policy Center report noted that spending under Sanders' plan could
> add as much as $33.3 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years, which
> dwarfs the current $14 trillion in debt currently owed by the federal
> government. Opponents of Sanders' plan say that such spending, if not
> offset
> by other revenues, would send the economy into a strong downward spiral.
> The Sanders campaign has said those estimates assume a much more expensive
> healthcare system than the candidate expects, and says low- and
> middle-income households would end up saving thousands of dollars a year.
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>
>
>
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 08:03:21 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare
Plans Receive Funding From Industries That Would Be Affected
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
No surprises here. What is puzzling is how so many working class
Americans buy into the attack on single payer health insurance.
I know that many folks argue that we can't afford such an expense, but
they don't seem to have a problem with the huge profits creamed off by
the "protectors" of our nation's health.
Currently the life expectancy for USA is, as of 2012, 78 years for
females and 74 years for males. Now that's pretty good when compared
to the average back when FDR signed Social Security into law in 1935.
Women lived an average of 67 years and men an average of 63. Notice
that the retirement age of 65 was two years higher than the average
life expectancy of men? And remember, FDR died at the ripe old age of
63, still too young to collect his first SS check.
But compared to the life expectancy around the world, the USA is, if
memory serves me, around 34th. We're nestled just below Costa Rica,
and just above Qatar.
More than 30 nations are doing something better than we are. And for
the most part they are doing it at less of a financial drain. Even our
once highly regarded Veterans Care has fallen on hard times.
Okay, so if I were born with a silver spoon in my kissable baby mouth,
I'd understand growing up believing I and "My People" were simply
brighter than the Riff Raff. They were placed here by God Almighty
to serve and pleasure me.
But where, in all that is sane, is the thinking of working folks who
go along stooping and kissing the hem of the garment of their
corporate masters?
This must be the great riddle that we must solve before we are freed
from our bondage.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/20/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Excerpt: "Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders'
> healthcare proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute,
> the two major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center, have received big
> contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries -
> industries whose profits could be reduced by Sanders' single-payer
> Medicare-for-all plan."
>
> Madonna Rea shakes hands with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
> Sanders as he has breakfast at Peppy Grill in Indianapolis, May 3, 2016.
> (photo: Getty)
>
>
> Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans Receive Funding From Industries
> That Would Be Affected
> By Clark Mindock and David Sirota, International Business Times
> 19 May 16
>
> Soon after the Tax Policy Center released its analysis of Bernie Sanders'
> tax and healthcare plans last week, the negative headlines began to pile up
> about the Vermont lawmaker's push to extend Medicare coverage to all
> Americans. Though a new Gallup poll shows Sanders' plan is widely popular,
> news outlets across the country pounced on one of the findings, which said
> the plan would increase the U.S. budget deficit by some $18 trillion
> between
> 2017 and 2026. One paper, the Washington Post, posted Sanders stories in
> just seven hours.
> Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders' healthcare
> proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, the two
> major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center, have received big
> contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries -
> industries whose profits could be reduced by Sanders' single-payer
> Medicare-for-all plan. That is on top of money the groups have received
> from
> Wall Street firms , fossil fuel companies, efforts connected to the
> billionaire Charles Koch, a foundation founded by the heirs to the Walmart
> fortune and others that Sanders has criticized.
> The health industry donors to the think tanks include:
> . Health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts delivered
> between $300,000 and $600,000 in 2012 and 2014 to the Urban Institute,
> while
> insurer UnitedHealthcare gave Brookings between $2 million and $4 million
> since 2012.
>
> . Several of the country's top drug manufacturers and suppliers gave
> to Brookings. The think tank's donors include the Roche Group (donated
> between $1 million and $2 million since 2012), Sanofi ($125,000 to
> $250,000)
> and Amgen ($100,000 to $200,000).
>
> . Two foundations connected to the pharmaceutical industry also gave
> generously. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - which was started by a
> Johnson & Johnson founder in 1972 - gave between $210,000 and $525,000 to
> Brookings and an undisclosed amount above $3 million since 2012 to Urban.
> The foundation for global pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb gave
> between $55,000 and $125,000 to Brookings.
>
> . MetLife, which has some health-related insurance business, gave a
> combined $300,000 to $750,000 to Brookings in 2013 , 2014 and 2015 .
> Brookings and Urban both told International Business Times that their
> scholars conduct their research based on objective information and
> analysis,
> and that their institutions take measures to ensure independence. Both
> noted
> that their organizations have diverse funding and that they have policies
> against allowing funders to determine research results.
> "Brookings' independence is critical to the promise we make to provide
> objective, fact-based research, and we have robust policies in place to
> ensure that independence, which we routinely review to maintain the highest
> standards for safeguarding it. We have a diverse funding base and no
> person,
> entity, or industry influences the research or recommendations produced by
> Brookings scholars," David Nassar, the vice president of communications at
> the Brookings Institution, wrote in a statement to IBT.
> The Urban Institute explained its funding sources in greater detail. Laura
> Greenback, Urban's media relations manager, told IBT in an email that Urban
> receives 49 percent of its funding from government sources, usually in a
> competitive bidding process. Beyond that, researchers are also supported by
> the foundation (43 percent of funding last year), other nonprofits (5
> percent), as well as trustees, individuals, corporations and universities
> (1
> percent each).
> "Urban's policies ensure researcher independence and guarantee that no
> funder shall determine research findings, insights, or conclusions of our
> experts," Greenback wrote. "Our scholars are independent and empowered to
> share their evidence-based views and recommendations shaped by research.
> The
> Urban Institute doesn't take official positions on issues, nor does it have
> an advocacy agenda of any kind."
> The Tax Policy Center has also released analysis of several other
> candidates' tax plans, including Sanders' primary foe, Hillary Clinton.
> (Their analysis said her tax increases would target the top 1 percent of
> taxpayers, and noted that marginal tax rates would go up, "reducing
> incentives to work, save and invest." )
> In recent months, several reports have raised new questions about the power
> of so-called cognitive capture - scenarios in which organizations that
> represent themselves as nonpartisan or academic, but which are funded by
> industries that could be affected by the studies, help shape research and
> the public debate. Brookings, in particular, has faced some of the toughest
> scrutiny: In October, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat,
> questioned whether an economist with Brookings who conducted a study was
> unduly affected by cozy relationships with Wall Street and the funding
> behind his research. A 2014 report, too, noted that pension reform-minded
> reports from Brookings were sponsored by the Laura and John Arnold
> Foundation, which has pushed to reduce guaranteed retirement benefits for
> public workers.
> The Tax Policy Center report noted that spending under Sanders' plan could
> add as much as $33.3 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years, which
> dwarfs the current $14 trillion in debt currently owed by the federal
> government. Opponents of Sanders' plan say that such spending, if not
> offset
> by other revenues, would send the economy into a strong downward spiral.
> The Sanders campaign has said those estimates assume a much more expensive
> healthcare system than the candidate expects, and says low- and
> middle-income households would end up saving thousands of dollars a year.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> Madonna Rea shakes hands with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
> Sanders as he has breakfast at Peppy Grill in Indianapolis, May 3, 2016.
> (photo: Getty)
> http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/bernie-sanders-tax-healthcare-plans
> -think-tanks-released-critical-study-receivehttp://www.ibtimes.com/political
> -capital/bernie-sanders-tax-healthcare-plans-think-tanks-released-critical-s
> tudy-receive
> Critics of Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plans Receive Funding From Industries
> That Would Be Affected
> By Clark Mindock and David Sirota, International Business Times
> 19 May 16
> oon after the Tax Policy Center released its analysis of Bernie Sanders'
> tax and healthcare plans last week, the negative headlines began to pile up
> about the Vermont lawmaker's push to extend Medicare coverage to all
> Americans. Though a new Gallup poll shows Sanders' plan is widely popular,
> news outlets across the country pounced on one of the findings, which said
> the plan would increase the U.S. budget deficit by some $18 trillion
> between
> 2017 and 2026. One paper, the Washington Post, posted Sanders stories in
> just seven hours.
> Left unsaid in the headlines and stories that condemned Sanders' healthcare
> proposal is that the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, the two
> major organizations behind the Tax Policy Center, have received big
> contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries -
> industries whose profits could be reduced by Sanders' single-payer
> Medicare-for-all plan. That is on top of money the groups have received
> from
> Wall Street firms , fossil fuel companies, efforts connected to the
> billionaire Charles Koch, a foundation founded by the heirs to the Walmart
> fortune and others that Sanders has criticized.
> The health industry donors to the think tanks include:
> . Health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts delivered
> between $300,000 and $600,000 in 2012 and 2014 to the Urban Institute,
> while
> insurer UnitedHealthcare gave Brookings between $2 million and $4 million
> since 2012.
> . Several of the country's top drug manufacturers and suppliers gave
> to Brookings. The think tank's donors include the Roche Group (donated
> between $1 million and $2 million since 2012), Sanofi ($125,000 to
> $250,000)
> and Amgen ($100,000 to $200,000).
> . Two foundations connected to the pharmaceutical industry also gave
> generously. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - which was started by a
> Johnson & Johnson founder in 1972 - gave between $210,000 and $525,000 to
> Brookings and an undisclosed amount above $3 million since 2012 to Urban.
> The foundation for global pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb gave
> between $55,000 and $125,000 to Brookings.
> . MetLife, which has some health-related insurance business, gave a
> combined $300,000 to $750,000 to Brookings in 2013 , 2014 and 2015 .
> Brookings and Urban both told International Business Times that their
> scholars conduct their research based on objective information and
> analysis,
> and that their institutions take measures to ensure independence. Both
> noted
> that their organizations have diverse funding and that they have policies
> against allowing funders to determine research results.
> "Brookings' independence is critical to the promise we make to provide
> objective, fact-based research, and we have robust policies in place to
> ensure that independence, which we routinely review to maintain the highest
> standards for safeguarding it. We have a diverse funding base and no
> person,
> entity, or industry influences the research or recommendations produced by
> Brookings scholars," David Nassar, the vice president of communications at
> the Brookings Institution, wrote in a statement to IBT.
> The Urban Institute explained its funding sources in greater detail. Laura
> Greenback, Urban's media relations manager, told IBT in an email that Urban
> receives 49 percent of its funding from government sources, usually in a
> competitive bidding process. Beyond that, researchers are also supported by
> the foundation (43 percent of funding last year), other nonprofits (5
> percent), as well as trustees, individuals, corporations and universities
> (1
> percent each).
> "Urban's policies ensure researcher independence and guarantee that no
> funder shall determine research findings, insights, or conclusions of our
> experts," Greenback wrote. "Our scholars are independent and empowered to
> share their evidence-based views and recommendations shaped by research.
> The
> Urban Institute doesn't take official positions on issues, nor does it have
> an advocacy agenda of any kind."
> The Tax Policy Center has also released analysis of several other
> candidates' tax plans, including Sanders' primary foe, Hillary Clinton.
> (Their analysis said her tax increases would target the top 1 percent of
> taxpayers, and noted that marginal tax rates would go up, "reducing
> incentives to work, save and invest." )
> In recent months, several reports have raised new questions about the power
> of so-called cognitive capture - scenarios in which organizations that
> represent themselves as nonpartisan or academic, but which are funded by
> industries that could be affected by the studies, help shape research and
> the public debate. Brookings, in particular, has faced some of the toughest
> scrutiny: In October, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat,
> questioned whether an economist with Brookings who conducted a study was
> unduly affected by cozy relationships with Wall Street and the funding
> behind his research. A 2014 report, too, noted that pension reform-minded
> reports from Brookings were sponsored by the Laura and John Arnold
> Foundation, which has pushed to reduce guaranteed retirement benefits for
> public workers.
> The Tax Policy Center report noted that spending under Sanders' plan could
> add as much as $33.3 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years, which
> dwarfs the current $14 trillion in debt currently owed by the federal
> government. Opponents of Sanders' plan say that such spending, if not
> offset
> by other revenues, would send the economy into a strong downward spiral.
> The Sanders campaign has said those estimates assume a much more expensive
> healthcare system than the candidate expects, and says low- and
> middle-income households would end up saving thousands of dollars a year.
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)