Friday, January 31, 2020
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Virus Outbreak Creates Vigilantes
The intensifying outbreak has led authorities to quarantine at least 56 million people in China's Hubei Province, including its capital city Wuhan, and halted all means of transport going in and out of many of its cities. The resulting pressure has predictably resulted in ever more desperate measures.
Videos and pictures circulating on social media purport to show frightened locals living near the border of Hubei resorting to various methods - including destroying roads and using weapon-wielding guards - in a desperate bid to stop people escaping from the other side.
Six villages in the province of Hebei, which does not adjoin virus-ravaged Hubei, even started to build brick walls to barricade themselves and stop outsiders.
One video shows the village of Yichuan using a digger to secretly destroy a road in the middle of the night.
Another clip captures the road firmly blocked by mud. A signboard is seen placed on top of the obstruction and it reads 'new type of pneumonia, control and prevention of the outbreak, no through traffic'.
In a third piece of footage, officials are seen blasting messages with loudspeakers, banning the locals from having gatherings or visiting relatives and urging them to wear face masks.
A video shared by Shanghai-born, Australia-based artist Badiucao appears to show desperate Hubei residents using small boats to try to escape. Audio from the footage indicates that the residents had been stopped by police on the other side while trying to get out by land.
In other viral pictures, villages officials have apparently sent weapon-wielding guards to prevent outsiders from entering their communities, and some of the guards can be seen holding blades and spears.
Residents in Xikangzhuang, close to the border of Shanxi province, have built entire walls out of brick, reportedly to 'stop outsiders coming to our village'.
Dongyinzhuang citizens have planned to create their own guardhouse – a large shed that has been winched into place by worried residents who have yet to hear from Government officials about what to do.
The central government has issued orders banning local officials from setting up checkpoints or blocking roads without authorization.
Not that it will stop increasingly desperate people. The deadly coronavirus has killed at least 170 people - all in China - and sickened at least 7,175 worldwide. It has so far been spread to 18 other countries and regions.
Videos and pictures circulating on social media purport to show frightened locals living near the border of Hubei resorting to various methods - including destroying roads and using weapon-wielding guards - in a desperate bid to stop people escaping from the other side.
Six villages in the province of Hebei, which does not adjoin virus-ravaged Hubei, even started to build brick walls to barricade themselves and stop outsiders.
One video shows the village of Yichuan using a digger to secretly destroy a road in the middle of the night.
Another clip captures the road firmly blocked by mud. A signboard is seen placed on top of the obstruction and it reads 'new type of pneumonia, control and prevention of the outbreak, no through traffic'.
In a third piece of footage, officials are seen blasting messages with loudspeakers, banning the locals from having gatherings or visiting relatives and urging them to wear face masks.
A video shared by Shanghai-born, Australia-based artist Badiucao appears to show desperate Hubei residents using small boats to try to escape. Audio from the footage indicates that the residents had been stopped by police on the other side while trying to get out by land.
In other viral pictures, villages officials have apparently sent weapon-wielding guards to prevent outsiders from entering their communities, and some of the guards can be seen holding blades and spears.
Residents in Xikangzhuang, close to the border of Shanxi province, have built entire walls out of brick, reportedly to 'stop outsiders coming to our village'.
Dongyinzhuang citizens have planned to create their own guardhouse – a large shed that has been winched into place by worried residents who have yet to hear from Government officials about what to do.
The central government has issued orders banning local officials from setting up checkpoints or blocking roads without authorization.
Not that it will stop increasingly desperate people. The deadly coronavirus has killed at least 170 people - all in China - and sickened at least 7,175 worldwide. It has so far been spread to 18 other countries and regions.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Univerisity of Missouri to Start Stalkig Students in the Name of Class Attendance
New students at the University of Missouri will be required to
participate in a tracking program designed to measure and enforce class
attendance, according to a new report from The Kansas City Star. Despite
privacy concerns, officials defended the decision as one that will benefit students, as the school's athletics department has already been
using the same app, SpotterEdu, to track certain student-athletes.
“A student will have to participate in order to record attendance,” Jim Spain, vice provost for undergraduate studies at MU, said. Individual professors have to opt-in to using the app, but once they do, students in those professors' classes will not be able to opt-out.
SpotterEDU, developed by a former Missouri basketball coach, is designed to monitor a user’s attendance by "pinpoint[ing] students within a classroom until they leave, providing continuous, reliable and non-invasive attendance," according to the app's website. While the app ensures that students are in the classroom during class times, it claims it does not track students' locations anywhere else.
In a statement to The Washington Post, SpotterEDU chief Rick Carter said that his company works with nearly 40 schools, including major schools such as Auburn, Central Florida, Indiana, and Missouri. Most schools only use SpotterEDU to track their student-athletes; however, many colleges are starting to use the app with their student bodies, like Missouri.
Indiana University assistant professor Kyle M. L. Jones told the Washington Post, “These administrators have made a justification for surveilling a student population because it serves their interests, in terms of the scholarships that come out of their budget, the reputation of their programs, the statistics for the school."
“What’s to say that the institution doesn’t change their eye of surveillance and start focusing on minority populations, or anyone else. [Students] should have all the rights, responsibilities and privileges that an adult has. So why do we treat them so differently?”Jones said.
“We have deep privacy concerns about this,” said Sara Baker, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri. She said that such tracking applications have the ACLU questioning “what sort of privacy rights students might be giving up to attend public universities.”
As always, the question always is who is watching the watcher. Baker is also concerned with the possibility of abuse. “Like monitoring which students are participating in protests,” she said. Are students being tracked wherever they go on campus? And she worries about who might gain access to that information. All of these questions remain unanswered.
“A student will have to participate in order to record attendance,” Jim Spain, vice provost for undergraduate studies at MU, said. Individual professors have to opt-in to using the app, but once they do, students in those professors' classes will not be able to opt-out.
SpotterEDU, developed by a former Missouri basketball coach, is designed to monitor a user’s attendance by "pinpoint[ing] students within a classroom until they leave, providing continuous, reliable and non-invasive attendance," according to the app's website. While the app ensures that students are in the classroom during class times, it claims it does not track students' locations anywhere else.
In a statement to The Washington Post, SpotterEDU chief Rick Carter said that his company works with nearly 40 schools, including major schools such as Auburn, Central Florida, Indiana, and Missouri. Most schools only use SpotterEDU to track their student-athletes; however, many colleges are starting to use the app with their student bodies, like Missouri.
Indiana University assistant professor Kyle M. L. Jones told the Washington Post, “These administrators have made a justification for surveilling a student population because it serves their interests, in terms of the scholarships that come out of their budget, the reputation of their programs, the statistics for the school."
“What’s to say that the institution doesn’t change their eye of surveillance and start focusing on minority populations, or anyone else. [Students] should have all the rights, responsibilities and privileges that an adult has. So why do we treat them so differently?”Jones said.
“We have deep privacy concerns about this,” said Sara Baker, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri. She said that such tracking applications have the ACLU questioning “what sort of privacy rights students might be giving up to attend public universities.”
As always, the question always is who is watching the watcher. Baker is also concerned with the possibility of abuse. “Like monitoring which students are participating in protests,” she said. Are students being tracked wherever they go on campus? And she worries about who might gain access to that information. All of these questions remain unanswered.
Monday, January 27, 2020
Scottish Man Uses Manual Transmission on a Truck
It appears to be a case of a man getting wood at the sight of a fence.
An elderly couple recently testified in a Scottish court that they saw 36-year-old David Bruce – who appeared to be drunk – pull his pants down, masturbate and simulate having sex with both a fence and the hood of a minibus.
76-year-old George Nisbet told court he had just finished walking his dog that day when the incident occurred. From an upstairs window, he and his wife Kathleen Nisbet witnessed the man urinating against a wooden fence.
“He then started rubbing his private parts up and down on the fence. It was as if he was trying to have sex with the fence."
Kathleen Nisbet testified she heard someone singing outside and thought it was a soccer supporter celebrating a victory. “Then I heard banging and looked outside,” she said. “There was a man singing at the top of his voice.”
She then saw the man jump onto the hood of a minibus and tried to have sex with the vehicle. “He was making thrusting movements and by this time his trousers were down,” she said.
“He was wandering about with his trousers at his ankles and then approached a woman. He was staggering about and then started masturbating for two or three minutes. Eventually, he fell down on somebody’s sidewalk.”
An elderly couple recently testified in a Scottish court that they saw 36-year-old David Bruce – who appeared to be drunk – pull his pants down, masturbate and simulate having sex with both a fence and the hood of a minibus.
76-year-old George Nisbet told court he had just finished walking his dog that day when the incident occurred. From an upstairs window, he and his wife Kathleen Nisbet witnessed the man urinating against a wooden fence.
“He then started rubbing his private parts up and down on the fence. It was as if he was trying to have sex with the fence."
Kathleen Nisbet testified she heard someone singing outside and thought it was a soccer supporter celebrating a victory. “Then I heard banging and looked outside,” she said. “There was a man singing at the top of his voice.”
She then saw the man jump onto the hood of a minibus and tried to have sex with the vehicle. “He was making thrusting movements and by this time his trousers were down,” she said.
“He was wandering about with his trousers at his ankles and then approached a woman. He was staggering about and then started masturbating for two or three minutes. Eventually, he fell down on somebody’s sidewalk.”
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Elizabeth Warrens Nabs Big Endorsement Ahead of Iowa Caucuses
The Des Moines Register is the largest daily newspaper in Iowa-- and one week ahead of the Iowa caucuses, it has endorsed Elizabeth Warren for president.
"The senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts is not the radical some perceive her to be. She was a registered Republican until 1996. She is a capitalist. “I love what markets can do,” she said. “They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity.” But she wants fair markets, with rules and accountability. She wants a government that works for people, not one corrupted by cash."
"She believes government should actively work to prevent and respond to abusive practices that jeopardize individuals and the country’s economy. Warren doesn’t measure the health of the economy by looking at the stock market or an unemployment rate that doesn’t count the longtime jobless or chronically underemployed. She measures it by how working families are doing. Many are not doing well, and Warren seeks major reforms to help them."
"Warren’s competence, respect for others and status as the nation’s first female president would be a fitting response to the ignorance, sexism and xenophobia of the Trump Oval Office. She is a thinker, a policy wonk and a hard worker. She remembers her own family’s struggles to make ends meet and her own desperation as a working mother needing child care. She cares about people, and she will use her seemingly endless energy and passion to fight for them. At this moment, when the very fabric of American life is at stake, Elizabeth Warren is the president this nation needs."
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is Losing It
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was backed into a rather uncomfortable corner during an interview with Mary Louise Kelly on NPR’s Morning Edition. Although Pompeo wanted to stick to the topic of Iran, Kelly pivoted to the Ukraine scandal and specifically wanted to know how he responded to criticism from State Department personnel who resigned after Pompeo failed to back U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch while she was being targeted by nefarious characters outside the U.S. government while she was doing her assigned work combatting corruption in Ukraine. Time and time again, Pompeo insisted he’d defended all State Department personnel. A blatant lie, one he struggled to defend.
MARY LOUISE KELLY: People who work for you in your department, people who have resigned from this department under your leadership, saying you should stand up for the diplomats who work here.”
MIKE POMPEO: I...I...I don’t know— I don’t know who these unnamed sources are you’re referring to. I can tell you this—
MARY LOUISE KELLY: These are not unnamed sources. This is your senior advisor Michael McKinley, a career foreign service officer with four decades experience who testified under oath that he resigned in part due to the failure of the State Department to offer support for foreign service employees caught up in the impeachment inquiry on Ukraine.
MIKE POMPEO: I’m not going to comment on things that Mr. McKinley may have said. I’ll say only this. I have defended every State Department official. We’ve built a great team. The team that works here is doing amazing work around the world—
MARY LOUISE KELLY: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?
MIKE POMPEO: I’ve defended every single person on this team. I’ve done what’s right for every single person on this team.
MARY LOUISE KELLY: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?
MIKE POMPEO: I’ve said all I’m going to say today. Thank you.
Additional reports have now surfaced that Pompeo berated Kelly after the mics were off. CNN’s Daniel Dale reports that Kelly said she was taken to Pompeo’s “private living room,” where he proceeded to shout at her for the “same amount of time as the interview itself.” He reportedly dropped an f-bomb, then asked her if she really believed “Americans care about Ukraine?” This was followed by him having a staffer bring in a map, and asking Kelly to prove to him that she knew where Ukraine was. Putting Pompeo in his place, Kelly quickly did so. He replied, "People will hear about this!"
This isn’t the first time Pompeo has freaked out when asked simple questions. Back in October 2019, Pompeo got pissed off at Wichita KMUV reporter as well as a reporter at the Wichita Eagle, calling their reasonable questions concerning disparaging remarks about State Department employees made by Trump and Pence, “insane.” This was just two weeks after he went off on a local reporter in Nashville.
We already know that Pompeo is an accomplished liar-- now it looks as if he has become an unstable one. The American people, and most especially our foreign service officers, deserve someone of the highest ethical and moral standards leading the State Department.
MARY LOUISE KELLY: People who work for you in your department, people who have resigned from this department under your leadership, saying you should stand up for the diplomats who work here.”
MIKE POMPEO: I...I...I don’t know— I don’t know who these unnamed sources are you’re referring to. I can tell you this—
MARY LOUISE KELLY: These are not unnamed sources. This is your senior advisor Michael McKinley, a career foreign service officer with four decades experience who testified under oath that he resigned in part due to the failure of the State Department to offer support for foreign service employees caught up in the impeachment inquiry on Ukraine.
MIKE POMPEO: I’m not going to comment on things that Mr. McKinley may have said. I’ll say only this. I have defended every State Department official. We’ve built a great team. The team that works here is doing amazing work around the world—
MARY LOUISE KELLY: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?
MIKE POMPEO: I’ve defended every single person on this team. I’ve done what’s right for every single person on this team.
MARY LOUISE KELLY: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?
MIKE POMPEO: I’ve said all I’m going to say today. Thank you.
Additional reports have now surfaced that Pompeo berated Kelly after the mics were off. CNN’s Daniel Dale reports that Kelly said she was taken to Pompeo’s “private living room,” where he proceeded to shout at her for the “same amount of time as the interview itself.” He reportedly dropped an f-bomb, then asked her if she really believed “Americans care about Ukraine?” This was followed by him having a staffer bring in a map, and asking Kelly to prove to him that she knew where Ukraine was. Putting Pompeo in his place, Kelly quickly did so. He replied, "People will hear about this!"
This isn’t the first time Pompeo has freaked out when asked simple questions. Back in October 2019, Pompeo got pissed off at Wichita KMUV reporter as well as a reporter at the Wichita Eagle, calling their reasonable questions concerning disparaging remarks about State Department employees made by Trump and Pence, “insane.” This was just two weeks after he went off on a local reporter in Nashville.
We already know that Pompeo is an accomplished liar-- now it looks as if he has become an unstable one. The American people, and most especially our foreign service officers, deserve someone of the highest ethical and moral standards leading the State Department.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Virginia Finally Addressing Its Racist Past
In its own sarcastic and gleeful way, Wonkette has reported that the Virginia Senate just voted to end the abomination that was Lee-Jackson Day-- a state
holiday commemorating Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.
Both men fought on the asshole side of the Civil War.
Lee-Jackson Day was merely an insult to Virginia's black population until 1983, when it also became an exercise in pettiness. That's when the Virginia legislature merged the holiday with the new federal holiday for Martin Luther King, who neither owned slaves nor waged bloody war against the United States. It was billed as "Lee-Jackson-King Day" in supposed honor of "defenders of causes," one racist and treasonous, the other actually reflective of America at its best. This went on until 2000 when the two holidays were finally separated. Lee-Jackson Day was observed the Friday before MLK Day, so Virginians could kick off their four-day weekend with a Civil War-themed parade and a gala ball! Fiddle-dee-dee, Miss Scarlett!
Virginia will replace Lee-Jackson Day with a state holiday for Election Day. This is seemingly a vast improvement, as presumably we want to encourage people to vote, not own other people. Republican Sen. Mark J. Peake argued for preserving Lee-Jackson Day, pleading, "We can promote everyone, we can promote diversity. We can add things without taking away or tearing down other things."
Oh, boo hoo! Conservatives suddenly hop on the diversity bandwagon when it comes to honoring white supremacists -- and not even successful ones. We already honor slave owners who won wars-- why should we give out participation trophies for white supremacists who had their asses kicked?
We should never forget Lee, Jackson or the atrocities they committed, but there's no reason we should celebrate them -- certainly not in the same breath as Dr. King, who dreamed of freedom for all.
Lee-Jackson Day was merely an insult to Virginia's black population until 1983, when it also became an exercise in pettiness. That's when the Virginia legislature merged the holiday with the new federal holiday for Martin Luther King, who neither owned slaves nor waged bloody war against the United States. It was billed as "Lee-Jackson-King Day" in supposed honor of "defenders of causes," one racist and treasonous, the other actually reflective of America at its best. This went on until 2000 when the two holidays were finally separated. Lee-Jackson Day was observed the Friday before MLK Day, so Virginians could kick off their four-day weekend with a Civil War-themed parade and a gala ball! Fiddle-dee-dee, Miss Scarlett!
Virginia will replace Lee-Jackson Day with a state holiday for Election Day. This is seemingly a vast improvement, as presumably we want to encourage people to vote, not own other people. Republican Sen. Mark J. Peake argued for preserving Lee-Jackson Day, pleading, "We can promote everyone, we can promote diversity. We can add things without taking away or tearing down other things."
Oh, boo hoo! Conservatives suddenly hop on the diversity bandwagon when it comes to honoring white supremacists -- and not even successful ones. We already honor slave owners who won wars-- why should we give out participation trophies for white supremacists who had their asses kicked?
We should never forget Lee, Jackson or the atrocities they committed, but there's no reason we should celebrate them -- certainly not in the same breath as Dr. King, who dreamed of freedom for all.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
New Investigaiton Reveals How the Daughter of Former Angolan Ruler Used Her Status to Build an Empire
Isabel dos Santos, who is known as “the princess” in Angola, the oil-rich nation her father ruled as president for almost four decades, has long denied that her estimated $2.2B fortune is the result of nepotism or corruption. However, an investigation by the Guardian shows otherwise.
The investigation is based on a trove of 715,000 emails, charts, contracts, audits and accounts obtained by the Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF), an anti-corruption charity whose work helped topple the South African leader Jacob Zuma. However, Dos Santos and her husband, the businessman and art collector Sindika Dokolo, say that the incriminating records were falsified by someone who hacked the computers belonging to their employees and legal advisers. They claim they are the subjects of a politically motivated witch-hunt led by Angola’s new president.
The material reveals a network of about 400 companies, many of them offshore, connected to Dos Santos, Dokolo and their associates) that were used in the following schemes:
Three weeks ago, Angola’s attorney general announced a freeze on the assets of Dos Santos, Dokolo and their chief adviser, alleging that their dealings with the country’s publicly owned oil and diamond companies had “harmed” the state to the tune of $1B.
Africa’s second-largest oil producing nation became known as one of the most corrupt countries on Earth, ranking near the bottom of the Transparency International corruption perceptions index.
“These are the classic symptoms of a captured state,” said Steve Goodrich, a senior research manager at Transparency International UK, after reviewing the Luanda leaks findings. “Here we have industry and politics all in one family, with no apparent separation of powers.”
Since taking over the leadership of the country and its ruling party, the new president, João Lourenço, has vowed to fight the “cancer of corruption”. The most high-profile targets of his anti-graft drive have been the children of his predecessor.
Isabel dos Santos’s half-brother, José Filomeno dos Santos, is on trial for the attempted looting of $500m from the country’s sovereign wealth fund. Her half-sister, Welwitschia dos Santos, a member of parliament, was impeached last year after fleeing to Britain.
In a sign that the international community is beginning to close ranks against Dos Santos, her name has been removed from a list of participants preparing to meet in Davos this week for the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering of business and political leaders.
The investigation is based on a trove of 715,000 emails, charts, contracts, audits and accounts obtained by the Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF), an anti-corruption charity whose work helped topple the South African leader Jacob Zuma. However, Dos Santos and her husband, the businessman and art collector Sindika Dokolo, say that the incriminating records were falsified by someone who hacked the computers belonging to their employees and legal advisers. They claim they are the subjects of a politically motivated witch-hunt led by Angola’s new president.
The material reveals a network of about 400 companies, many of them offshore, connected to Dos Santos, Dokolo and their associates) that were used in the following schemes:
- The sale (by Angola's state oil company Sonangol) of its stake in the Portuguese oil corporation Galp, now worth $850M after an initial loan-backed payment of just $12M.
- $115M in payments ordered while Dos Santos was chair of the state oil company, made to consultancy firms, through a Dubai company controlled by her associates.
- Use of $200m in Angola public debt to prop up a venture of the ailing Swiss jewelry brand partly owned by Dos Santo's husband.
- $500M in over-invoicing by two Dos Santos companies from a real estate development in the Angolan capital, Luanda. The payments were later cancelled by the new president for “disproportionate compensation”.
Three weeks ago, Angola’s attorney general announced a freeze on the assets of Dos Santos, Dokolo and their chief adviser, alleging that their dealings with the country’s publicly owned oil and diamond companies had “harmed” the state to the tune of $1B.
Africa’s second-largest oil producing nation became known as one of the most corrupt countries on Earth, ranking near the bottom of the Transparency International corruption perceptions index.
“These are the classic symptoms of a captured state,” said Steve Goodrich, a senior research manager at Transparency International UK, after reviewing the Luanda leaks findings. “Here we have industry and politics all in one family, with no apparent separation of powers.”
Since taking over the leadership of the country and its ruling party, the new president, João Lourenço, has vowed to fight the “cancer of corruption”. The most high-profile targets of his anti-graft drive have been the children of his predecessor.
Isabel dos Santos’s half-brother, José Filomeno dos Santos, is on trial for the attempted looting of $500m from the country’s sovereign wealth fund. Her half-sister, Welwitschia dos Santos, a member of parliament, was impeached last year after fleeing to Britain.
In a sign that the international community is beginning to close ranks against Dos Santos, her name has been removed from a list of participants preparing to meet in Davos this week for the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering of business and political leaders.
Monday, January 20, 2020
Lessons of our Time From Martin Luther King
On this day of celebration of the legacy of Martin Luther King, it's seems to me that GOP Senators could take a lesson from a sermon MLK gave just days before his death. Entitled, "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution", the sermon was given at the Washington National Cathedral. In part:
Think again how Trump continues to wreak havoc on this nation through the "appalling silence and indifference of good people who sit around and say "Wait on time."The hour has come for everybody, for all institutions of the public sector and the private sector to work to get rid of racism. And now if we are to do it we must honestly admit certain things and get rid of certain myths that have constantly been disseminated all over our nation.One is the myth of time. It is the notion that only time can solve the problem of racial injustice. And there are those who often sincerely say to the Negro and his allies in the white community, "Why don’t you slow up? Stop pushing things so fast. Only time can solve the problem. And if you will just be nice and patient and continue to pray, in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out."There is an answer to that myth. It is that time is neutral. It can be used wither constructively or destructively. And I am sorry to say this morning that I am absolutely convinced that the forces of ill will in our nation, the extreme rightists of our nation—the people on the wrong side—have used time much more effectively than the forces of goodwill. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, "Wait on time."
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Why All this Shock and Hate Over Harry and Meghan Moving to Canada?
Congratulations are in order for Prince Harry and Princess Meghan-- they are finally free to make their way in life as they choose.
However, the news that the royal couple will give up using their titles, repay the $3M cost to refurbish their Windsor home and stop receiving money from the state-funded sovereign grant was met with triumphalism by much of the British press. “Queen orders a hard Megxit,” read the Sunday Mirror’s front-page headline. “Harry and Meghan Out in the Cold,” said the Sunday People. The Sun went for “Payback Time”, while the Sunday Express had “Freedom … at a price.”
Camilla Long, of the Sunday Times, was among the most scathing, arguing that among the victims of the couple’s decision were people working in the Grenfell soup kitchen visited by Meghan this month:
Morgan rolled out the moronic and snide tone for which he has become known regarding Meghan: “Who the fuck do they think they are?” he began and escalated from there. “Nobody tells the Queen what to do,” he huffed, only to later demand: “Get rid of these whining, ego-crazed, deluded leeches, Ma’am.” Of course, Morgan’s column made reference to the fleeting occasion he met Meghan for half a drink four years ago-- an encounter that in Morgan’s mind has achieved mythic proportions, only to become symbolic to him when afterwards she decided against continuing their friendship. “She’s an unsavory, manipulative, social-climbing piece of work,” Morgan later raged, displaying his usual capacity for self-awareness. This is the same guy who has written precisely two columns on Prince Andrew’s friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein-- but yet he has written dozens on Meghan – who committed the worse-than-pedophilia crime of not inviting Morgan to her wedding!
Since the very beginning of her relationship with Harry, the British press has applied a mean-spirited double standard to the coverage of Meghan vs. Kate Middleton-- for doing almost the same things. Underlying all of this rubbish is thinly-veiled racism which Meghan has endured at the hands of the British press from the very beginning, and it's been extremely hard to ignore.
As Zoe Williams of the Guardian has pointed out, it is dispiriting to watch journalists make excuses for this – it’s not because she’s mixed race, it’s because she’s American; it’s nothing to do with race, her celebrity from a previous life made her uppity. The difference between the treatment meted out to the two princesses, Kate and Meghan, especially while they were pregnant, is absolutely chilling. So much of the bizarre, contradictory criticism leveled at Meghan (why is she flaunting her bump; why hasn’t she been seen out and about; why is she keeping Harry away from his family?) distils into: why does she exist? What right has she to inhabit space? If you think seriously about the disconnect between the scorn poured upon her, and anything she’s actually said or done to warrant it, it’s quite a shaming picture of the vindictiveness of the British press towards ethnic minority women.
The racism underlying even the earliest headlines-- about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist brooch in the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists. Those who claim frequent attacks against the duchess have nothing to do with her race have a hard time explaining these attempts to link her with particularly racialized forms of crime-- terrorism and gang activity.
It is completely understandable that Prince Harry fears that the British press have them under siege to a degree that threatens to do to them what it did to his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. The collective turn against the Sussexes by much of the media since they made their announcement illustrates precisely where part of the problem lies. It does not help that Britain has just elected a government led by a journalist who fabricated stories and whose manifesto gives the press a free pass to continue the abuses.
It’s no wonder the couple want to leave and protect their son Archie from the bile to which they’ve been exposed. What puzzling is that the British press, having attacked the couple continuously, now reacts with shock at their move.
However, the news that the royal couple will give up using their titles, repay the $3M cost to refurbish their Windsor home and stop receiving money from the state-funded sovereign grant was met with triumphalism by much of the British press. “Queen orders a hard Megxit,” read the Sunday Mirror’s front-page headline. “Harry and Meghan Out in the Cold,” said the Sunday People. The Sun went for “Payback Time”, while the Sunday Express had “Freedom … at a price.”
Camilla Long, of the Sunday Times, was among the most scathing, arguing that among the victims of the couple’s decision were people working in the Grenfell soup kitchen visited by Meghan this month:
“You know who the real victim in this whole Harry and Meghan thing is? It isn’t Harry or Meghan, however much these fey children tell us they’ve had their spirits ‘crushed’ by the sheer number of palaces and diamonds and footmen we’ve flung at them. It isn’t us, even though we’ve had the stupidity to pay this pair of oxygen thieves more than £60,000 a day, if you take into account the £32m wedding, the £2.4m cottage renovation, the security and fripperies and Meghan’s dresses, for the privilege of being patronised and dissed to our faces by them, since they married in May 2018. It’s the poor, sweet, benighted ladies of the Grenfell soup kitchen I feel sorry for, who have been repeatedly duped into smiling and nodding as the duchess sweeps in to pretend to cook rice on yet another of her many content-gathering missions.”This has been only the latest in a two-week barrage of harassment of Harry and (especially) Meghan. The leading hate-mongers have been the Daily Mail, which splashed no fewer than 14 nasty stories on its web front page when the story broke earlier this month. The same commentators who sneered at Meghan for being dazzled by royalty now condemn her for wanting to leave it-- chief among them the idiot twit Piers Morgan.
Morgan rolled out the moronic and snide tone for which he has become known regarding Meghan: “Who the fuck do they think they are?” he began and escalated from there. “Nobody tells the Queen what to do,” he huffed, only to later demand: “Get rid of these whining, ego-crazed, deluded leeches, Ma’am.” Of course, Morgan’s column made reference to the fleeting occasion he met Meghan for half a drink four years ago-- an encounter that in Morgan’s mind has achieved mythic proportions, only to become symbolic to him when afterwards she decided against continuing their friendship. “She’s an unsavory, manipulative, social-climbing piece of work,” Morgan later raged, displaying his usual capacity for self-awareness. This is the same guy who has written precisely two columns on Prince Andrew’s friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein-- but yet he has written dozens on Meghan – who committed the worse-than-pedophilia crime of not inviting Morgan to her wedding!
Since the very beginning of her relationship with Harry, the British press has applied a mean-spirited double standard to the coverage of Meghan vs. Kate Middleton-- for doing almost the same things. Underlying all of this rubbish is thinly-veiled racism which Meghan has endured at the hands of the British press from the very beginning, and it's been extremely hard to ignore.
As Zoe Williams of the Guardian has pointed out, it is dispiriting to watch journalists make excuses for this – it’s not because she’s mixed race, it’s because she’s American; it’s nothing to do with race, her celebrity from a previous life made her uppity. The difference between the treatment meted out to the two princesses, Kate and Meghan, especially while they were pregnant, is absolutely chilling. So much of the bizarre, contradictory criticism leveled at Meghan (why is she flaunting her bump; why hasn’t she been seen out and about; why is she keeping Harry away from his family?) distils into: why does she exist? What right has she to inhabit space? If you think seriously about the disconnect between the scorn poured upon her, and anything she’s actually said or done to warrant it, it’s quite a shaming picture of the vindictiveness of the British press towards ethnic minority women.
The racism underlying even the earliest headlines-- about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist brooch in the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists. Those who claim frequent attacks against the duchess have nothing to do with her race have a hard time explaining these attempts to link her with particularly racialized forms of crime-- terrorism and gang activity.
It is completely understandable that Prince Harry fears that the British press have them under siege to a degree that threatens to do to them what it did to his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. The collective turn against the Sussexes by much of the media since they made their announcement illustrates precisely where part of the problem lies. It does not help that Britain has just elected a government led by a journalist who fabricated stories and whose manifesto gives the press a free pass to continue the abuses.
It’s no wonder the couple want to leave and protect their son Archie from the bile to which they’ve been exposed. What puzzling is that the British press, having attacked the couple continuously, now reacts with shock at their move.
Saturday, January 18, 2020
More Arrested in Connection to Planned Violence in Richmond VA
 |
| Jacob Kaderli, Michael Helterbrand & Luke Austin Lane |
The Base is a racially motivated violent extremist group that seeks to "accelerate the downfall of the United States government, incite a race war and establish a white ethno-state."
The three Georgia men were arrested after an undercover FBI sting operation, and charged with attempted murder and participating in a criminal organization. Luke Austin Lane, Michael Helterbrand, and Jacob Kaderli were planning to "overthrow the government and murder a Bartow County couple" who they believed to be Antifa members
The FBI said the men arrested in Maryland and Delaware planned to travel to a pro-gun rally in Richmond, Virginia. Virginia governor Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency ahead of the rally, to block attendees from carrying weapons near the grounds of the Capitol building, citing credible threats of violence.
It is not yet known if the three men arrested in Georgia were planning to attend the gun-rights rally in Richmond. The group was involved in the gang's paramilitary training camp located at a home Silver Creek, Georgia, police said.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Thursday, January 16, 2020
A U.S. Ambassador Was Stalked and in Physical Danger-- Yet Pompeo and the State Department Have Nothing to Say About It-- Why?
Without offering any explanation, State Department officials yesterday abruptly canceled two national security-related briefings in the House and Senate that are required by law to occur on a monthly basis. “Staff are furious,” a House aide told Politico. “This briefing is required by law every month, and today's was the most important we've had scheduled in a long time. The State Department has given us no explanation whatsoever.”
Why were these particular briefings that important? Well, it seems that the briefings had been expanded to include information about embassy security following the U.S. strike on Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, and Donald Trump's subsequent claims that embassies were at risk of attack.
Congressional aides had also intended to delve into the Trump administration's weak and ever-changing justifications for the Soleimani assassination, as well as inquire about current threat levels for embassy staff-- especially in light of the recent news that operatives working on behalf of Trump were stalking former Ukrainian ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
The abrupt cancellations comes right on the heels of new evidence that Yovanovitch may have been in physical danger as Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his goons conspired to remove her from her post. Text messages clearly show that someone had the ambassador under physical and electronic surveillance last March. More ominously-- the exchanges included cryptic messages that more could be done toward the ambassador for “a price.”
Neither the State Department nor Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have responded to repeated requests for comment. Pompeo also dodged a public hearing earlier this week requested by House lawmakers and instead flew to California to attend other events. What does Pompeo have to hide? And how long can the State Department stonewall all these congressional inquiries?
This is just one more prong in the Trump administration's blanket obstruction of congressional oversight.
Former Asst. FBI Director Frank Figliuzzi tells MSNBC: “If we were living in any kind of normal world, we would have the Secretary of State and the Attorney
General of the US ordering the FBI and the diplomatic security service
to investigate any assertion that someone inside the US embassy in
Ukraine has somehow compromised the security of the ambassador.”
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Twat is Going On With Gwyneth Paltrow?
 |
| Comes with instructions for men |
Truly, has any vagina ever been as fruitful as Gwyneth Paltrow’s? It has birthed discussions of vaginal steaming, vaginal jade eggs, $15,000 dildos, something called “sex dust” and a photo of Gwyneth standing in a giant vagina to advertise some inevitable Netflix documentary/reality TV series crossover. Because Gwyneth no longer has just her head up her vagina; she has crawled all the way inside. I am torn between suggesting this is a very advanced yoga position accessible only to those who have endless free time to practice, and pointing out this is The Human Centipede, but for extreme narcissists. Let’s go with both.
So Gwyneth has made a candle called This Smells Like My Vagina because, well, of course she has. It is priced at a comparatively bargain £58, which was pretty much what the sex dust cost, which makes me think Gwyneth is under-pricing her vagina, really, if she is just selling it for the price of a load of old dust. And I say “was what the sex dust cost” because the sex dust, like the vagina candle, sold out.
Yes, Gwyneth’s vagina has been good to us, but it has primarily been good to her. Well, in the main. As all of us ladies know, sometimes there can be problems in that department, and while most of us sort ours out with a dose of Canesten, Gwyneth’s vagina problem, in classic Gwyneth fashion, ended up costing her $145,000 (£110,000). This was in 2018 when her near-notorious wellness company, Goop, was fined under California’s civil penalties laws for making what was described as “unsubstantiated” marketing claims about the aforementioned jade egg. It turns out, incredibly, that shoving a random object up your vagina won’t “balance hormones, regulate menstrual cycles, prevent uterine prolapse and increase bladder control”.
In fact, the gynecologist Dr Jen Gunter, in an open letter to Gwyneth that went as viral as an unwashed jade egg, suggested that it might cause toxic shock syndrome. Despite that, it is still for sale on goop.com, for a steal at a mere £60, although after that legal unpleasantness, the only words next to it on the site are: “Eggs are pre-drilled for string add-on, we recommend using unwaxed dental floss.” The mind does truly boggle.
Whole religions have been founded trying to answer the big questions: what is the meaning of life? What is reality? How can we cope with the concept of mortality? Goop is a quasi-religion in itself, from its messianic head figure, its deluded self-belief, its ludicrous claims and its overflowing bank account accrued from the desperate and vulnerable, estimated to exceed $250m. It has answered perhaps the greatest question of all: what does Gwyneth’s vagina smell like? According to the candle, it is a “funny, gorgeous, sexy and beautifully unexpected scent”, a mix of “geranium, citrusy bergamot, and cedar absolutes juxtaposed with damask rose and ambrette seed”. To which one can only say: boy, Gwyneth sure does spend a lot of time up there to have picked up on all that. I’ve read entire wine menus with fewer descriptive references.
But we must tread carefully here because Gwyneth does not like people questioning her vagina. In 2017, pre-legal case, in response to Dr Gunter’s repeated criticisms, Goop posted a gorgeously huffy reply, which Gwyneth tweeted, with the comment: “When they go low, we go high.” Who knew flogging vaginal eggs was taking the high road? Goop’s “contributing doctors” described Dr Gunter as “strangely confident” (to which Dr Gunter replied: “I am appropriately confident”) and insisted they are “empowering women” by “questioning the status quo”. The status quo being, I guess, vaginas without egg-shaped rocks stuck up inside them. Thank God that status has been quo-ed. Those doctors, by the way, seem to have been strangely silent, post-legal case. No doubt so as to empower women better.
Still, Goop is worth more than a quarter of a billion dollars, largely because of Gwyneth talking about her vagina, so no wonder she has a smile on her face (or maybe that’s just the vaginal egg). So, light that candle, breathe deep and accept the facts: this is Gwyneth’s vagina. And the rest of us just live in it.
Monday, January 13, 2020
Fertlizer Runoff Poisoning Florida Waters
CAHughes says that elected officials need to say 'No' to Big Sugar and talks about his personal experience: “My family first moved to Florida in the 1970s. We lived on Fort Myers Beach. I remember when the waters were blue and clear and full of life. A year later we moved to Cape Coral where I still have my home today. I remember when our dock walls were full of hundreds of crabs. I remember visiting friends who lived along the clear teal-colored waters in the Cape throughout the '80s. My father won the Tarpon Tournament at Cape Coral Yacht Club. His tarpon and award hang in the Cape Coral Museum."
"Life by the water was happiness, until now. When I returned to Florida, I noticed something was very wrong with our local waters. When Lake Okeechobee was being released to prevent the dike from bursting, black nutrient- laden polluted water flowed into our canal, killing everything - dead fish, dead manatees, dead dolphins; the fallout these past couple years. When I last took my mother to the beach, there was a toxic algae bloom and she could not breathe. Tourists don't realize their health is at risk when they swim in these waters or eat the fish, which have been turning up with tumors. When I was a kid, we NEVER had toxic algae blooms here. Sanibel's waters used to be crystal clear sparkling blue every day. Think about it. In his 2005 book The Swamp, author Michael Grunwald describes how the Everglades were contaminated by sugar growers.”
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Women's March Inc. Making a Late Attempt to Regain Credibility
Women’s March Inc. is a national organization that was launched in 2017 by four activists from
New York City — Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez, and Bob
Bland-- and were primarily responsible for leveraging early opposition to Trump into a nationwide series of protests for Women's rights. Unfortunately, the group become mired in allegations of antisemitism after two of its founders-- Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez refused to denounce their support for Louis Farrakhan.
After the initial march, the four co-chairs ousted one of the group’s earliest organizers, Vanessa Wruble, who is Jewish. Wruble later helped establish a new organization and made accusations of anti-Semitism.
In 2018, the accusations of anti-Semitism against march co-chairs Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez gained credibility when media outlets homed in on the leaders’ relationship with Louis Farrakhan, the controversial National of Islam leader known for making sexist and anti-Semitic comments. The Women's March co-chairs denied the allegations of antisemitism and condemned some of Farrakhan’s more outrageous statements, but refused to denounce the man himself.
The backlash was swift. Mallory and Perez became persona non grata in many progressive circles. Co-president Bob Bland was forced to deny in the Tablet magazine investigative report that anti-Semitic remarks were made during Women’s March leadership meetings.
Nevertheless, Leah McSweeney and Jacob Siegel at Tablet reported that Mallory and fellow Women’s March Inc. co-chair Carmen Perez had indeed made anti-Semitic comments at board meetings. At an early meeting to plan the first Women’s March, Mallory and Perez “asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people.”
Evvie Harmon (the group's former co-global coordinator) also disclosed that even after the hugely successful initial march, Mallory claimed that “The problem was that there were five white women in the room and only three women of color, and that she didn’t trust white women. Especially white women from the South."
The first Women’s March attracted around 4 million participants; in 2018, it was closer to 2 million. Last year, the most generous estimates put the crowd size at around 730,000. Nearly half of all local marches called off their 2019 event, and others put out statements declaring their independence from the national group. Celebrities including Alyssa Milano vowed not to speak at the demonstrations, and sponsors including NARAL, Emily’s List, and the Human Rights Campaign pulled their support.
Mallory dug herself into a deep hole last year during an interview on The View where, after being pressed by Meghan McCain, she would not condemn Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has called Jews “termites” and praised Adolf Hitler. in that same interview, she also continued her refusal to condemn Farrakhan's many antisemitic and misogynistic statements. Mallory also refused to say in an interview on PBS if she thought Israel had the right to exist.
In the aftermath of that controversy, 2019 was marked by shrinking crowds at Women's March events across the nation, splinter groups, dueling marches, and continued allegations of antisemitism. After a long period of denial and antagonism against various local groups, the Women’s March national organization decided to make changes to its board and launch a re-branding effort.
Women's March Inc. started off by announcing that Sarsour, Mallory and Bland would resign from the board, but that Perez would remain. But this wasn't exactly true-- chief operating officer Rachel O’Leary Carmona was later forced to admit that Sarsour, Mallory and Bland may still be involved in some way in the future-- and that Perez would stay in a rotating seat saved for the founders (which many have interpreted as an open door for Sarsour, Mallory and Bland to return).
Just days after the changes to the board were announced, social media sleuths dragged up old social media posts from incoming member Zahra Billoo that many deemed anti-Semitic. The board voted swiftly to remove her-- but for many, it was all too little, too late.
In Los Angeles, where crowd sizes regularly swamped those in D.C., the local organizing group cut ties with the national organization after the controversy. Local leader Emiliana Guereca said they don’t plan to re-join forces with the reformulated national organization anytime soon. “We weren’t aligned with some of the statements that were put forth [by the national group],” she told The Daily Beast. “We [have] moved on. We want no part of the negative rhetoric. As a Jewish Latina organizer, what was going on was not acceptable.”
Vanessa Wruble, the early march leader who first raised accusations of antisemitism against Perez and Mallory, founded her own women’s political group after being pushed out of the organization. She said her group, March On, will be focused less on marching and more on mobilizing turnout for the election.
Mercy Morganfield, a former D.C. organizer who has been critical of the original co-chairs, feels the latest changes don't go far enough. She has criticized the Women’s March for appointing new board members rather than electing them, and for keeping in a rotating seat for the original co-chairs. She also claims that many of the new board members have been in “lockstep” with the original co-chairs from the beginning. “I don’t have too much confidence in the Women’s March and I have a lot of resentment for them because I think they took a powerful moment... and they squandered it for foolishness,” she said.
After the initial march, the four co-chairs ousted one of the group’s earliest organizers, Vanessa Wruble, who is Jewish. Wruble later helped establish a new organization and made accusations of anti-Semitism.
In 2018, the accusations of anti-Semitism against march co-chairs Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez gained credibility when media outlets homed in on the leaders’ relationship with Louis Farrakhan, the controversial National of Islam leader known for making sexist and anti-Semitic comments. The Women's March co-chairs denied the allegations of antisemitism and condemned some of Farrakhan’s more outrageous statements, but refused to denounce the man himself.
The backlash was swift. Mallory and Perez became persona non grata in many progressive circles. Co-president Bob Bland was forced to deny in the Tablet magazine investigative report that anti-Semitic remarks were made during Women’s March leadership meetings.
Nevertheless, Leah McSweeney and Jacob Siegel at Tablet reported that Mallory and fellow Women’s March Inc. co-chair Carmen Perez had indeed made anti-Semitic comments at board meetings. At an early meeting to plan the first Women’s March, Mallory and Perez “asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people.”
Evvie Harmon (the group's former co-global coordinator) also disclosed that even after the hugely successful initial march, Mallory claimed that “The problem was that there were five white women in the room and only three women of color, and that she didn’t trust white women. Especially white women from the South."
The first Women’s March attracted around 4 million participants; in 2018, it was closer to 2 million. Last year, the most generous estimates put the crowd size at around 730,000. Nearly half of all local marches called off their 2019 event, and others put out statements declaring their independence from the national group. Celebrities including Alyssa Milano vowed not to speak at the demonstrations, and sponsors including NARAL, Emily’s List, and the Human Rights Campaign pulled their support.
Mallory dug herself into a deep hole last year during an interview on The View where, after being pressed by Meghan McCain, she would not condemn Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has called Jews “termites” and praised Adolf Hitler. in that same interview, she also continued her refusal to condemn Farrakhan's many antisemitic and misogynistic statements. Mallory also refused to say in an interview on PBS if she thought Israel had the right to exist.
In the aftermath of that controversy, 2019 was marked by shrinking crowds at Women's March events across the nation, splinter groups, dueling marches, and continued allegations of antisemitism. After a long period of denial and antagonism against various local groups, the Women’s March national organization decided to make changes to its board and launch a re-branding effort.
Women's March Inc. started off by announcing that Sarsour, Mallory and Bland would resign from the board, but that Perez would remain. But this wasn't exactly true-- chief operating officer Rachel O’Leary Carmona was later forced to admit that Sarsour, Mallory and Bland may still be involved in some way in the future-- and that Perez would stay in a rotating seat saved for the founders (which many have interpreted as an open door for Sarsour, Mallory and Bland to return).
Just days after the changes to the board were announced, social media sleuths dragged up old social media posts from incoming member Zahra Billoo that many deemed anti-Semitic. The board voted swiftly to remove her-- but for many, it was all too little, too late.
In Los Angeles, where crowd sizes regularly swamped those in D.C., the local organizing group cut ties with the national organization after the controversy. Local leader Emiliana Guereca said they don’t plan to re-join forces with the reformulated national organization anytime soon. “We weren’t aligned with some of the statements that were put forth [by the national group],” she told The Daily Beast. “We [have] moved on. We want no part of the negative rhetoric. As a Jewish Latina organizer, what was going on was not acceptable.”
Vanessa Wruble, the early march leader who first raised accusations of antisemitism against Perez and Mallory, founded her own women’s political group after being pushed out of the organization. She said her group, March On, will be focused less on marching and more on mobilizing turnout for the election.
Mercy Morganfield, a former D.C. organizer who has been critical of the original co-chairs, feels the latest changes don't go far enough. She has criticized the Women’s March for appointing new board members rather than electing them, and for keeping in a rotating seat for the original co-chairs. She also claims that many of the new board members have been in “lockstep” with the original co-chairs from the beginning. “I don’t have too much confidence in the Women’s March and I have a lot of resentment for them because I think they took a powerful moment... and they squandered it for foolishness,” she said.
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Buttigieg's Race Problem
Many Democrats feel that the 7%-8% Pete Buttigieg gets in national polling is an
embarrassment for the party-- as if Democrats haven’t learned the lesson from the 2016 election: the danger of
electing an unqualified, untested man president. And yet there are scores of dedicated liberals raising tens of millions of dollars for a man who has never had to win more than
11,000 votes for anything (see Buttigieg's election results from his 2011 and 2015 mayoral elections).
But if you weren’t already skeptical of Buttigieg's candidacy, this great investigative piece by The Root should change change your mind fairly quickly. The article very convincingly outlines why Buttigieg is scoring a big fat ZERO among black voters. While there is simply too much to summarize in Michael Harriot's excellent piece-- I'll give it a try.
There’s the three high-ranking black city officials who were gone three months after Buttigieg first took office, including the demotion of the police chief for recording racist cops being racist. Those racist cops? Three were promoted; the fourth moved away. Buttigieg claimed he fired the chief because he was the target of a federal investigation-- except that was a lie.
Ultimately, half of the city’s black police officers made discrimination complaints during Buttigieg’s tenure as mayor, and not a single one got justice. Ultimately, this led to an exodus of black police officers. “When Buttigieg became mayor in 2012, the South Bend Police Department was 11 percent black (29 of 244 officers),” writes Harriot. “There were 28 black officers in 2013; 26 in 2014, and by the time Buttigieg announced his run for president, the South Bend police force was six percent black, with 15 black officers.” South Bend is 26% black.
It should be no surprise to anyone why Buttigieg is not registering with black voters-- and likely never will. Let's move on.
But if you weren’t already skeptical of Buttigieg's candidacy, this great investigative piece by The Root should change change your mind fairly quickly. The article very convincingly outlines why Buttigieg is scoring a big fat ZERO among black voters. While there is simply too much to summarize in Michael Harriot's excellent piece-- I'll give it a try.
There’s the three high-ranking black city officials who were gone three months after Buttigieg first took office, including the demotion of the police chief for recording racist cops being racist. Those racist cops? Three were promoted; the fourth moved away. Buttigieg claimed he fired the chief because he was the target of a federal investigation-- except that was a lie.
Ultimately, half of the city’s black police officers made discrimination complaints during Buttigieg’s tenure as mayor, and not a single one got justice. Ultimately, this led to an exodus of black police officers. “When Buttigieg became mayor in 2012, the South Bend Police Department was 11 percent black (29 of 244 officers),” writes Harriot. “There were 28 black officers in 2013; 26 in 2014, and by the time Buttigieg announced his run for president, the South Bend police force was six percent black, with 15 black officers.” South Bend is 26% black.
It should be no surprise to anyone why Buttigieg is not registering with black voters-- and likely never will. Let's move on.
Friday, January 10, 2020
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
The Iran Empire Strikes Back
The Pentagon is now confirming that “more than a dozen” missiles were launched towards U.S. bases in Iraq. Further reports say that ballistic missiles have been fired
from inside Iran at multiple U.S. military facilities--Erbil in northern Iraq and Al Asad Air Base in western Iraq. There were later reports that 22 missiles involved in the attack.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the attack was in retaliation for the U.S. killing of Qassim Soleimani.
"We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted," it said in a statement carried by Iran's state-run IRNA news agency.
Iran is also saying that any retaliation to this new attack will result in further targeting of any U.S. bases in the region.
As a reminder to everyone-- that as this crisis escalates, we have no Director of National Intelligence, no Deputy Director of National Intelligence, no Secretary of Homeland Security Secretary, no Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, no Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, no Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, no State Department Under Secretary of Arms Control, no State Department Assistant Secretary for Europe, and no Secretary of the Navy.
"We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted," it said in a statement carried by Iran's state-run IRNA news agency.
Iran is also saying that any retaliation to this new attack will result in further targeting of any U.S. bases in the region.
As a reminder to everyone-- that as this crisis escalates, we have no Director of National Intelligence, no Deputy Director of National Intelligence, no Secretary of Homeland Security Secretary, no Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, no Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, no Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, no State Department Under Secretary of Arms Control, no State Department Assistant Secretary for Europe, and no Secretary of the Navy.
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Monday, January 6, 2020
An Act of War or Just an Assassination?
As we all still wait for the Trump administration to specify what "imminent threat" provided legal justification for the killing of Qasem Soleimani, it's looking more and more like the provocative act against Iran was just a good old-fashioned assassination (which is technically still supposed to be illegal, not that such a thing matters much to Trump).
In that vein, it might be a good time to review the U.S. history of assassinations. According to journalist and author William Blum, the U.S. has made more than 50 attempts to assassinate political leaders across the globe. His 2003 book "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II" is "far and away the best book on the topic" according to academic Noam Chomsky. However, most of the claims and allegations in the book are unsubstantiated or not reported upon by otherwise reliable sources. A more solid list of U.S.-sponsored assassination activities (thought not all have been confirmed by the CIA) is as follows:
Assassination Attempts
1959: In one of its early attempts (there were perhaps over a hundred) to kill Fidel Castro, the CIA recruited a former lover of the Cuban strongman and provided her with poison pills, which she hid in her cold-cream jar. The pills melted and the woman decided that the chances of forcing them into Castro’s mouth while he slept were limited. Castro guessed her intentions and chivalrously offered her his own pistol so she could finish the job. “I can’t do it, Fidel,” she told him.
1960: President Eisenhower authorized a CIA attempt to assassinate Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of Congo. CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb devised a poison resembling toothpaste, which he personally brought to the Congo in September of that year. The attempt was called off at the last minute by Larry Devlin, the local CIA station chief.
1960's: Newly declassified files reveal that the CIA planned an attempt on the life of Indonesian President Sukarno. The plotting progressed as far as the identification of an asset who the CIA felt might be recruited for this purpose. The plan was later abandoned.
1976: The Washington Post reported that the CIA approved a plan to assassinate Jamaican Prime Minister Michale Manley. According to the report, three schemes were devised-- one on July 14, 1976, when Manley's jeep was stopped by a roadblock: then on a scheduled Manley visit to Canada in September, 1976, and finally last Dec. 15, the night of the Jamaican elections. All the plans went awry before any shots were fired.
1985: The CIA arranged for the Saudi Arabian intelligence service to undertake an assassination attempt aimed at Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah (leader of Hezbollah) in Lebanon. The operation went awry, killing 80 innocent people when a car bomb exploded in a Beirut suburb.
1986: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi narrowly escaped an attempt on his life by U.S. forces when his compound was targeted by air strikes.
2002: After Afghani politician and warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was expelled from Iran, he was targeted for assassination by a CIA drone as his convoy approached Kabul. The Hellfire missile somehow missed.
2003: Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein escaped an attempt on his life by U.S. forces during an airstrike on the Presidential Palace in Baghdad in the precursor to the Invasion of Iraq.
Assassinations
1953: The CIA is suspected of throwing CIA bacteriologist Frank Olson out a 10th-floor window of the Hotel Statler to his death. Decades after the incident, the CIA admitted covertly dosing Olson with LSD at a CIA retreat in Deep Creek Lake, Maryland just days before his death. After that fateful retreat, Olson threatened to quit his work on a secret CIA program investigating the use of psychotropic drugs for espionage and the military. Within days, Olson began suffering severe paranoia and a nervous breakdown (perhaps as a result of the LSD exposure)-- so he was sent to a CIA physician in New York City for treatment. He died the night before he was scheduled to return to Washington DC.
1963: The CIA backed the coup and assassination of the Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem and his younger brother Ngo Dinh Nhu.
1961: The CIA supported and provided weapons to dissidents in the planning of the assassination of the Dominican Republic's Rafael Trujillo.
1970: The CIA, who considered Chilean General René Schneider a major stumbling block for military officers seeking to carry out a coup of Salvador Allende, supplied a group of Chilean officers with weapons for the operation to kidnap Schneider, during which the General was shot and killed.
1973: The CIA helped organize the overthrow of Chile’s president, Salvador Allende, deemed to be too left wing-- he died on the day of the coup.
1981: There is widespread speculation that Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos was killed when a bomb planted aboard his aircraft by CIA-organized operatives exploded upon approach at the Penonomé airport.
In that vein, it might be a good time to review the U.S. history of assassinations. According to journalist and author William Blum, the U.S. has made more than 50 attempts to assassinate political leaders across the globe. His 2003 book "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II" is "far and away the best book on the topic" according to academic Noam Chomsky. However, most of the claims and allegations in the book are unsubstantiated or not reported upon by otherwise reliable sources. A more solid list of U.S.-sponsored assassination activities (thought not all have been confirmed by the CIA) is as follows:
Assassination Attempts
1959: In one of its early attempts (there were perhaps over a hundred) to kill Fidel Castro, the CIA recruited a former lover of the Cuban strongman and provided her with poison pills, which she hid in her cold-cream jar. The pills melted and the woman decided that the chances of forcing them into Castro’s mouth while he slept were limited. Castro guessed her intentions and chivalrously offered her his own pistol so she could finish the job. “I can’t do it, Fidel,” she told him.
1960: President Eisenhower authorized a CIA attempt to assassinate Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of Congo. CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb devised a poison resembling toothpaste, which he personally brought to the Congo in September of that year. The attempt was called off at the last minute by Larry Devlin, the local CIA station chief.
1960's: Newly declassified files reveal that the CIA planned an attempt on the life of Indonesian President Sukarno. The plotting progressed as far as the identification of an asset who the CIA felt might be recruited for this purpose. The plan was later abandoned.
1976: The Washington Post reported that the CIA approved a plan to assassinate Jamaican Prime Minister Michale Manley. According to the report, three schemes were devised-- one on July 14, 1976, when Manley's jeep was stopped by a roadblock: then on a scheduled Manley visit to Canada in September, 1976, and finally last Dec. 15, the night of the Jamaican elections. All the plans went awry before any shots were fired.
1985: The CIA arranged for the Saudi Arabian intelligence service to undertake an assassination attempt aimed at Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah (leader of Hezbollah) in Lebanon. The operation went awry, killing 80 innocent people when a car bomb exploded in a Beirut suburb.
1986: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi narrowly escaped an attempt on his life by U.S. forces when his compound was targeted by air strikes.
2002: After Afghani politician and warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was expelled from Iran, he was targeted for assassination by a CIA drone as his convoy approached Kabul. The Hellfire missile somehow missed.
2003: Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein escaped an attempt on his life by U.S. forces during an airstrike on the Presidential Palace in Baghdad in the precursor to the Invasion of Iraq.
Assassinations
1953: The CIA is suspected of throwing CIA bacteriologist Frank Olson out a 10th-floor window of the Hotel Statler to his death. Decades after the incident, the CIA admitted covertly dosing Olson with LSD at a CIA retreat in Deep Creek Lake, Maryland just days before his death. After that fateful retreat, Olson threatened to quit his work on a secret CIA program investigating the use of psychotropic drugs for espionage and the military. Within days, Olson began suffering severe paranoia and a nervous breakdown (perhaps as a result of the LSD exposure)-- so he was sent to a CIA physician in New York City for treatment. He died the night before he was scheduled to return to Washington DC.
1963: The CIA backed the coup and assassination of the Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem and his younger brother Ngo Dinh Nhu.
1961: The CIA supported and provided weapons to dissidents in the planning of the assassination of the Dominican Republic's Rafael Trujillo.
1970: The CIA, who considered Chilean General René Schneider a major stumbling block for military officers seeking to carry out a coup of Salvador Allende, supplied a group of Chilean officers with weapons for the operation to kidnap Schneider, during which the General was shot and killed.
1973: The CIA helped organize the overthrow of Chile’s president, Salvador Allende, deemed to be too left wing-- he died on the day of the coup.
1981: There is widespread speculation that Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos was killed when a bomb planted aboard his aircraft by CIA-organized operatives exploded upon approach at the Penonomé airport.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)