Posts from the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Folta Exposed

 

A Florida Professor Works With the Biotech Industry
Kevin Folta, chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, began to correspond regularly with executives at Monsanto in early 2013. He soon teamed up with the company and other industry representatives to defend their genetically engineered crop technologies as they lobbied Congress and other government authorities. Dr. Folta has said he worked as an independent scientist. But Monsanto helped cover his costs.

and this

WASHINGTON — At Monsanto, sales of genetically modified seeds were steadily rising. But executives at the company’s St. Louis headquarters were privately worried about attacks on the safety of their products.
So Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, and its industry partners retooled their lobbying and public relations strategy to spotlight a rarefied group of advocates: academics, brought in for the gloss of impartiality and weight of authority that come with a professor’s pedigree.
“Professors/researchers/scientists have a big white hat in this debate and support in their states, from politicians to producers,” Bill Mashek, a vice president at Ketchum, a public relations firm hired by the biotechnology industry, said in an email to a University of Florida professor. “Keep it up!”
And the industry has.

Corporations have poured money into universities to fund research for decades, but now, the debate over bioengineered foods has escalated into a billion-dollar food industry war. Companies like Monsanto are squaring off against major organic firms like Stonyfield Farm, the yogurt company, and both sides have aggressively recruited academic researchers, emails obtained through open records laws show.
The emails provide a rare view into the strategy and tactics of a lobbying campaign that has transformed ivory tower elites into powerful players. The use by both sides of third-party scientists, and their supposedly unbiased research, helps explain why the American public is often confused as it processes the conflicting information.

The push has intensified as the Senate prepares to take up industry-backed legislation this fall, already passed by the House, that would ban states from adopting laws that require the disclosure of food produced with genetically modified ingredients.
The efforts have helped produce important payoffs, including the approval by federal regulators of new genetically modified seeds after academic experts intervened with the United States Department of Agriculture on the industry’s behalf, the emails show.

A Florida Professor Works With the Biotech Industry
Kevin Folta, chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, began to correspond regularly with executives at Monsanto in early 2013. He soon teamed up with the company and other industry representatives to defend their genetically engineered crop technologies as they lobbied Congress and other government authorities. Dr. Folta has said he worked as an independent scientist. But Monsanto helped cover his costs.

and this

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/u…cademics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html

WASHINGTON — At Monsanto, sales of genetically modified seeds were steadily rising. But executives at the company’s St. Louis headquarters were privately worried about attacks on the safety of their products.
So Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, and its industry partners retooled their lobbying and public relations strategy to spotlight a rarefied group of advocates: academics, brought in for the gloss of impartiality and weight of authority that come with a professor’s pedigree.
“Professors/researchers/scientists have a big white hat in this debate and support in their states, from politicians to producers,” Bill Mashek, a vice president at Ketchum, a public relations firm hired by the biotechnology industry, said in an email to a University of Florida professor. “Keep it up!”
And the industry has.

Corporations have poured money into universities to fund research for decades, but now, the debate over bioengineered foods has escalated into a billion-dollar food industry war. Companies like Monsanto are squaring off against major organic firms like Stonyfield Farm, the yogurt company, and both sides have aggressively recruited academic researchers, emails obtained through open records laws show.
The emails provide a rare view into the strategy and tactics of a lobbying campaign that has transformed ivory tower elites into powerful players. The use by both sides of third-party scientists, and their supposedly unbiased research, helps explain why the American public is often confused as it processes the conflicting information.

The push has intensified as the Senate prepares to take up industry-backed legislation this fall, already passed by the House, that would ban states from adopting laws that require the disclosure of food produced with genetically modified ingredients.
The efforts have helped produce important payoffs, including the approval by federal regulators of new genetically modified seeds after academic experts intervened with the United States Department of Agriculture on the industry’s behalf, the emails show.

The slate article is on the last page of the thread (page 8)

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt…wing_the_science_to_scare_people_.single.html

They mention Ken Folta here and link his blog:

One University of Florida scientist suggests the study was “designed to frighten” the public.*
They even mention him again at the bottom of the article in their “correction” (which is what caught my eye first.)

Correction, Sept. 26, 2012: This article originally misidentified the affiliation of the scientist who suggests that the study was “designed to frighten” the public. He is with the University of Florida, not UC-Berkley.

Principles Not Fear

The thing I can’t stand is when people say “You are throwing your vote away.” If more people deleted that negative mindset, third party candidates would win. Vote on principle not fear.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172758

John1940 wrote:

I know that everyone here is dying to visit or revisit irrational numbers. The square root of 2 is is irrational and it’s easy to prove that. Another is pi (3.14159…) — but there is another very interesting one that can be defined to any number of digits by a formula. It’s Euler’s irrational number called e which is 2.718… and so on.

It’s used in many sorts of mathematics. It appears in all engineering calculators to 10 digits (or more) such as in the one I bought years ago for $4 at the local supermarket. The reason I’m bring it up is that it’s used in public-key encryption. I’m working on a paper (to myself) to explain how it works and to show real examples. There is a shortage of real examples that start at the beginning and also show how long each takes on a laptop such as the one I am using. (I’ll tell you if I succeed. I have no idea how long this activity will take.)

I am an algorithm nut. Just to give you an example, there is the flying salesman’s problem that is very processing intensive if one wants to find an exact solution. Here is an example. Pick 99 cities in the contiguous States of the USA and figure out the shortest path, starting from any city, to visit each one only once and return to the start. That is called a tour and is a loop.

It is an important way to start a wide area network topology. On this PC it would take several billion years to get the best answer (the shortest tour). But it’s not hard to find a creditable answer in about 30 seconds or so. (Going to the closest next node does not provide a creditable answer. I can teach almost any kid to prove this point.)

Here is an explanation of e, Euler;s number.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/e-eulers-number.html

John1940
Hey John, a few years back I found an excellent article describing many different types of numbers including rational, irrational, imaginary, transcendental and complex. I can’t seem to find it now- perhaps you can locate it?

I remember that the article discussed the concept that the number line was really a number ring, and that moving towards infinity actually led back to negative infinity (as an example- the tangent curve)- and that the number system actually mimicked the universe, that while infinite, the universe was closed and if you went far enough in one direction, you’d end up back where you started. It also discussed the concept of imaginary time and the speed of light being an asymptote rather than a limit. Fascinating- because we’ve found absolute zero temperatures to be an asymptote too (it can be jumped over to below absolute zero temperatures but not crossed directly.) The number system and the universe in general may work the same way (and “jumping” over the asymptote could cross us over the boundary into another universe with a reversed arrow of time compared to ours- but forward relative to itself and ours would be vice versa- as defined by black hole cosmology- but that’s another story.)

Hey John, a few years back I found an excellent article describing many different types of numbers including rational, irrational, imaginary, transcendental and complex. I can’t seem to find it now- perhaps you can locate it?

I remember that the article discussed the concept that the number line was really a number ring, and that moving towards infinity actually led back to negative infinity (as an example- the tangent curve)- and that the number system actually mimicked the universe, that while infinite, the universe was closed and if you went far enough in one direction, you’d end up back where you started. It also discussed the concept of imaginary time and a contracting universe before the big bang (oscillating model) with the cosmological constant winding down with each new cycle and the speed of light being an asymptote rather than a limit. Fascinating- because we’ve found absolute zero temperatures to be an asymptote too (it can be jumped over to below absolute zero temperatures but not crossed directly.) The number system and the universe in general may work the same way (and “jumping” over the asymptote could cross us over the boundary into another universe with a reversed arrow of time compared to ours- but forward relative to itself and ours would be vice versa- as defined by black hole cosmology- but that’s another story.)

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/closed-mind-richard-dawkins

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58162616

In fact, the Spanish and Portugese were the worst offenders in the African slave trade. The vast majority of Africans taken into slavery in the 1700’s-1800’s, around four million, went to south America to work the gold and silver mines. Most were dead within a year.

And, so far, they seem to have been given a free ride on that act of genocide.

The horrors visited by the Japanese upon those they conquered was swept under the carpet, as the US needed Japan to join in the cold war. Not to mention their WMD’s they tested on the Chinese – we needed their prowess in biological warfare, too, so that was hushed up.

However, one of the few positive outcomes of WW2 was setting a precedent that oppressing people simply because of who they are can lead to defeat and judgment at the end of a rope.

 

We have become a victim of our own unwillingness to think for ourselves.

 

And he isn’t a righty- he HATED Bush (as any peace activist should)- you should have seen the droves of cables released about what the Bush administration was doing in Iraq, its ties to Monsanto (trying to strongarm European countries into adopting Monsanto), and the release of surveillance data as well as the treatment of Bradley Manning.

Sure Obama has lowered the crime rate. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised. He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power, he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too), failed to prosecute those who tortured, expanded fracking, did not get the patriot act repealed, was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173290

Degania Alef wrote:

I don’t like to use the term ‘racism’ simply because there is only ONE human race on this planet…not several different ones.

What most people incorrectly call racism….is merely ethno-cultural based bigotry and prejudice.

Well, the British Empire certainly didn’t invent this concept…BUT, they sure did perfect it during their 328 year global based wankership

As a BRIT myself, let’s tell it like it truly is.

Britain has always held this pompous, we are better than everybody else, condescending, put down attitude…when it comes to all “foreigners”…which BTW, yes being at Calais.

Whilst I have absolutely nothing against ethnic based humour (as you know)…the true underlying bigotry and prejudice has always been right there brewing, (just under the surface) like a silent but deadly Cockney Chavvie FART…just waiting to leap out and smother any unsuspecting migrant (or home born minority) who doesn’t conform to the Ango Saxon ways.

Geeze, growing up in the UK during the 50’s to mid 70’s there were so many derogatory names for just about every different ethnic group – I can’t list them all here.

And IF I did…I’d simply be banned – again, for doing so.

Anti-semitic slurs were 10 shekels a pound when I was growing up in England.

Yeah, I know…this blatent anti-everything foreign one upmanship has been gradually pushed a little further under that surface a bit more in recent years…and yes, it’s now mostly contained to the lower working class types…and elite bigots (many in the British forces)….who still think the Empire is alive n well.

But, nevertheless…it’s still there lurking, and it doesn’t take very much to bring it out…as we have seen in recent months with regard the EU migrant crisis and BREXIT vote, etc.

They don’t call it the Septic Isles for nuffink.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173311
by the way, didn’t your outgoing prime minister Cameron use thinly veiled bigotry against London’s new mayor?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173322
…and, never mind the Bollox
What the Brits did in India was heinous- they were raping local women. Also the Opium Incidents with China were not a high point. You can clearly see where America gets its thirst for Empire from. It went directly from the Romans to the Brits to the Americans. I never had any regard for the Romans either- they stole so much knowledge from the Greeks, even their gods.

The Romans, the Brits, the Mongols, the Nazis, the Russians, the Americans, the Spaniards, the French, etc.- I put them all into the same category. And thus completely understand why people resort to violence to oppose being controlled by them.

Re: religion vs spirituality and atheism vs agnosticism
In reply to ck3 • 1 min ago
ck3 wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

ck3 wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

SirLataxe wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

ck3 wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

SirLataxe wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Can you explain to me how Islam is “race”? and how you can have a “phobia” about something which preaches the subjugation, and murder, of people who refuse to submit to it?

SirLataxe
Pap, old swivel-eye,

This explanation you demand is probably best obtained by a close examination of yourself by yourself. I realise that introspection is not much developed in your psyche but, believe me, it is a mental skill you desperately need to acquire.

I suppose I could mention the many explanations provided to you by others concerning the extreme and uncontrolled emissions from your wee brainbox. But in it’s present configuration that wee brainbox cannot seem to grok anything other than the football hooligan mode of judging others (i.e. by their scarf-colour).

Yes – introspection, you need. Or perhaps a good psychoanalyst?

SirLataxe
some faux shakesperean cobblers
You tried, I’ll give you that…
He never answers the questions, just goes ad-hominem, it’s easier than reality.
Pap the realist! A most peculiar notion given his Pap-parps concerning “cultural Marxism” and the invisible horde of murderous foreigners about to overwhelm his Papness any minute now albeit he has been expecting this horde for some years yet they still haven’t swept him away in a tide of stones and beheadings.
You mean the voices in your head, the ones that never answer the actual questions.

As to the ad-hominem – well, one likes to converse in an idiom or argot in which one’s interlocutor will feel the ease of familiarity. I apologise for being rather amateur at this mode but, unlike yourself, I haven’t had decades of practice bellowing crude threats and insults at the blokes on the other terrace with different coloured stripes in their scarves.
Well it appears all you can do is throw out insults, because you don’t actually have any answers to anything, so I’ll try again, here are the questions:

Can you explain to me how Islam is a “race”? and how you can have a “phobia” about something which preaches the subjugation, and murder, of people who refuse to submit to it?
You don’t know what “morphed” means, do you?
I most definitely do, you appear to have “morphed” into Sir Laxative.
Not at all, SirLataxe (again, your spelling issues) remains distinct and unique.

And it seems neither do you know what the meaning of “phobia” in “Islamophobia” is.
I do, it just doesn’t make logical sense in this context, but carry on.

Let me help you:

“Such terms are not phobias. They are negative towards certain categories of people or other things, used in an analogy with the medical usage of the term. Usually these kinds of “phobias” are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the “phobia”. Often this attitude is based on prejudices and is a particular case of most xenophobia.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia#Non_medical_use

You don’t deny that you “fear, dislike and disapprove” of Islam, do you?
Why would I do that?
See, and that would describe a phobia – so why so defensive?

it’s an entirely logical thing to feel with a religion that openly says it wants to make me submit to it or kill me.
See, and that would describe the “prejudice, hatred, discrimination” part.

And while you think your attitude towards Islam is perfectly rational, because you diligently read Breitbart and those “Islam-for-dummies” books of that retired engineer, others might suspect your attitude is based predominantly on prejudice and hatred and a surprising need to simplify complex social phenomena in order to fit them in a rigid and rather crude worldview. Oh, and probably also on old-fashioned racism.
Well that’s lovely and all, but as you appear to have “morphed” into Sir Laxative by proxy,

I have some questions for you, just so we can establish how ludicrous a word “Islamphobia” is and establish your credentials as a useful idiot (to be fair, it’s not required, but lets do it anyway).
Oh fun, a Pap-quiz!

Question 1 – Is the Koran the word of god, to be followed as it is written (if you’re a muslim of course)?
Yes! Just like the words of Jesus btw!

Question 2 – Is Mohammed meant to be the perfect man, to be emulated at all times?
He is not meant to be but considered to be someone to very much aspire to – and according to legend he seems to have been quite a decent bloke, much beloved by the people who met him.

Question 3 – Does the Koran specify sanctions and punishments, including death to “unbelievers” (That’s non-muslims in case you weren’t aware)?
Probably not but I guess you will find some quote by some “expert” who claims otherwise – and you believe him because if it confirms your prejudices. And “unbelievers” probably would exclude Christians and Jews unless they are converts from Islam.

Question 4 – Was Mohammed a terrorist?
No.

Question 5 – Does the Koran call Muslims to war against unbelievers?
No. It is a proselytizing religion though – like Christianity.

So, once you’ve answered those questions, can you tell me why I logically should be a big fan of Islam, as opposed to being what I am, someone who abhors everything it stands for, by it’s own words and deeds?
Why would I tell you, you should be a big fan of Islam? I am not. But then again, I’m not a big fan of any religion.

What you abhor though is not Islam, which is quite a complex set of ideas (embedded in social praxis which differs from place to place) that inspire different people to different things, some bad, some good – as most ideas do.

What you “abhor” is the cheap caricature of Islam you’ve made up and take for “the real thing” (as if there was “one real Islam”) – though you don’t really abhor it, because after all it gives you a reason to hate people – something you eminently like, because you’re a racist.
Agreed, I don’t approve of any religions, only respectful peaceful spirituality that holds nature in high esteem- like Buddhism and Taoism. I’m an agnostic. Not fond of atheists either- Dawkins is arrogant and his atheism is almost like a religion.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173345

Someone who can’t spell “particle” properly shouldn’t be taken seriously period. I suppose it’s asking too much to have been reading about Grand Unified Theories back in seventh grade, like I was- but I know people who did it when they were even younger. That an adult can’t spell a simple word correctly is something that still shocks me. But then again I’ve never had much contact with people of average and below intelligence and never had the desire to do so. The human species is pretty backwards, in spite of its technology, it has not advanced much intellectually from the days of cave people. You see that with the overreaction to fear, greed, power, etc. If a cataclysm happens to take away our technology, we go right back to sticks and stones. Einstein said that, actually.

MrCentrist wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

Not a day goes by without a brain dead right winger ranting about how crime rates have gone up since Obama came into office. And to make themselves look more ignorant, they blame Hillary.

But the reality is crime rates are at historic lows. Every year under Obama crime rates were lower than any year un GW Bush. Amazing the same idiots bragged about how low the crime rates were under GW.
The reason that there’s such gulf between right and left-wing viewpoints is that they’re arguing from different perspectives. Progressive people tend to argue based on facts and figures, whereas conservatives tend to argue based on emotion. I believe that many people on the right feel like they’re less safe, and for them that’s all that matters. They feel that way because of the rise of terrorism and the sensational coverage it gets in the media, who are engaged in a race to the bottom in order to satisfy that kind of appetite.

So it’s pretty much useless to argue with facts. If you’re to have a hope of convincing “them”, you’ll need to communicate in a way that connects with their emotions.
You have right and left confused.

The reason that there’s such gulf between right and left-wing viewpoints is that they’re arguing from different perspectives. Conservative people tend to argue based on facts and figures,
But here we have facts and figures and only the Left can see them.

whereas Progressives tend to argue based on emotion.
But here despite the facts the Right seems to argue with paranoia ignoring the facts.

I believe that many people on the left feel like they’re less safe
Again, we have HRC and the left arguing we are better off today that 10 years ago, and Trump and the right arguing that the country is less safe and that people should be scared.

It is not just cime stats too. Look at illegal immigration. We hit a low for the past 15 years. It was much worse 10 years ago. But only the right is arguing that is too high and a threat to their lives.
The Clintons aren’t part of the “left” lol. And look at Obama’s record and why he’s been called Deporter-in-Chief. Most progressives don’t like neolibs and neocons. I’ve had the perspective of living in other countries for a time and understanding why these countries don’t like America and how it tries to control them. I’ve also seen how the Nordic Model is better and results in a higher standard of living and life expectancy than the oligarchy that passes for “democratic republic” in the US. Studies from major universities like Princeton back that up.

, and for them that’s all that matters. They feel that way because of the increasing sensational coverage of shootings in the media, who are engaged in a race to the bottom in order to satisfy that kind of appetite.
But in the case you mention there are stats to back it up. But the emotional Right refuses to look at them and instead talks of fear of minorities.

So it’s pretty much useless to argue with facts. If you’re to have a hope of convincing “them”, you’ll need to communicate in a way that connects with their emotions.
This is true. Look at this one thread avout crime. The Right wing refuses to look at the facts.

Look at illegal immigration. The Right wing refuses to look at the facts.

Look at police violating the civil rights of minorities. The Right wing refuses to look at the facts.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/us/baltimore-justice-department-report/index.html
How can you argue that the country is better off when you see the police committing such heinous acts? This country is a cesspool of bigotry, racism, elitism, and capitalistic corruption.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173428

No, you’re not. Clinton is not from the left. That’s a major issue. Also, you cannot say the country is better off when you have so much bigotry, racism, elitism and corrupt capitalism going on and the police violating civil rights and establishing a psuedo-police state. Trump is going way in the wrong direction, but that doesn’t mean Clinton is correct either- and she certainly isn’t a progressive. She only looks good compared to Trump- and even so, just barely.
No, you’re not. Clinton is not from the left. That’s a major issue. Also, you cannot say the country is better off when you have so much bigotry, racism, elitism and corrupt capitalism going on and the police violating civil rights and establishing a psuedo-police state. Trump is going way in the wrong direction, but that doesn’t mean Clinton is correct either- and she certainly isn’t a progressive. She only looks good compared to Trump- and even so, just barely.

Yes Obama deported much more then BushII and I didn´t looked it up, but I would bet he also bombed/dronestriked more countries then BushII. He was also the first puppet that killed two US citizens with dronestrikes, one was an child.
And the other problem is assuming anyone who speaks out is a Putin schill smacks of McCarthyism. There’s enough room for two corrupt “superpowers”- as well as two corrupt major party candidates.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173447

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/edward-snowden-dead-conspiracy-theory-claims-whistleblower-killed-after-cryptic-tweet-1574892

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-vs-edward-snowden-twitter-feud-kicks-off-over-recent-data-leaks-1573236

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cyberwar-begins-us-believed-hack-back-russia-following-democratic-party-email-leaks-1573640

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/whistleblower-edward-snowden-sparks-curiosity-cryptic-tweet-its-time-1574308

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/edward-snowden-dead-conspiracy-theory-claims-whistleblower-killed-after-cryptic-tweet-1574892

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-could-release-more-material-us-election-says-assange-1572945

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-dumps-20000-emails-revealing-personal-details-democrat-donors-1572131

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/whistleblower-edward-snowden-says-nsa-would-know-if-russia-involved-dnc-hack-1572768

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-amid-email-leaks-revealing-plot-against-bernie-sanders-1572267

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-vs-edward-snowden-twitter-feud-kicks-off-over-recent-data-leaks-1573236

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173488

Don´t find the link I had read from my usual sources or maybe I have seen it in the news on one of our publicbroadcaster, however this comes close to what I have heard.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/edward-snowden-dead-conspiracy-theory-claims-whistleblower-killed-after-cryptic-tweet-1574892

And as said, I only was speculating in the hope you would have maybe more information.
I like trying to put 2 and 2 together and I saw some flags in the article you posted.

It mentioned the 64 bit code that was posted and then it stated that although Greenwald says Snowden is safe, that Snowden’s Twitter account has been suspiciously inactive.

Then I read this:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-vs-edward-snowden-twitter-feud-kicks-off-over-recent-data-leaks-1573236

So my speculation would include that it’s possible that wikileaks is trying to hack Snowden because of what he said? It would not surprise me, since wikileaks is more of a loose association of people with varying goals. Perhaps he detected the hack and sent the code out so the information wouldn’t be lost in case he did get hacked? And maybe his silence on the matter indicates they succeeded but hopefully Greenwald was able to secure the information with the code that Snowden sent out? Just speculation on my part.

Don´t find the link I had read from my usual sources or maybe I have seen it in the news on one of our publicbroadcaster, however this comes close to what I have heard.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/edward-snowden-dead-conspiracy-theory-claims-whistleblower-killed-after-cryptic-tweet-1574892

And as said, I only was speculating in the hope you would have maybe more information.
I like trying to put 2 and 2 together and I saw some flags in the article you posted.

It mentioned the 64 bit code that was posted and then it stated that although Greenwald says Snowden is safe, that Snowden’s Twitter account has been suspiciously inactive.

Then I read this:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-vs-edward-snowden-twitter-feud-kicks-off-over-recent-data-leaks-1573236

So my speculation would include that it’s possible that wikileaks is trying to hack Snowden because of what he said? It would not surprise me, since wikileaks is more of a loose association of people with varying goals. Perhaps he detected the hack and sent the code out so the information wouldn’t be lost in case he did get hacked? And maybe his silence on the matter indicates they succeeded but hopefully Greenwald was able to secure the information with the code that Snowden sent out? Just speculation on my part.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/guccifer-2-0-exposed-dnc-hacker-propaganda-tool-russian-intelligence-1572702

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/did-russia-really-hack-dnc-kremlin-officials-continue-deny-involvement-email-leak-1572591

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikileaks-leaks-25-dnc-voicemails-likely-from-email-transcription-service

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/26/politics/julian-assange-dnc-email-leak-hack/

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/guccifer-2-0-exposed-dnc-hacker-propaganda-tool-russian-intelligence-1572702

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/trump-enters-unchartered-territory-after-urging-russia-conduct-espionage-against-clinton-1572915

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173524

In either case, the war in Iraq was completely unnecessary. Similar to Vietnam.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173538

Would be only half the fun if the elites would chose Presipuppet The Donald with VP ClintonII without the election show.

Go greens Go
I’m sure one day we’ll find out how much of a sham this whole political process was/is- actually I think we are already learning that lol. And the mass media have been found out for what they are- colluders.

Go Greens Go!

Would be only half the fun if the elites would chose Presipuppet The Donald with VP ClintonII without the election show.

Go greens Go
I’m sure one day we’ll find out how much of a sham this whole political process was/is- actually I think we are already learning that lol. And the mass media have been found out for what they are- colluders.

Go Greens Go!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173552

You two seem to use similar tactics lol. By the way, assault weapons do need to be banned. They might be involved in a “tiny fraction” but that fraction seems to be growing.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173646

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/marc-mezvinsky-clinton-hedge-fund-greece

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173774

I like Buffet; Gates, not so much. He has a long history of using dirty takeover tactics. He gave Microsoft a bad name. And his donations always have an ulterior motive- including being tied to companies like Monsanto.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/emails-raise-new-questions-on-ties-between-clinton-foundation-state-department.html

Emails raise new questions on ties between Clinton Foundation, State Department

“In one email exchange released by Judicial Watch, Doug Band, an executive at the Clinton Foundation, tried to put billionaire donor Gilbert Chagoury — a convicted money launderer — in touch with the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon because of the donor’s interests there.

In the email, Band notes that Chagoury is a “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists Clinton aide Huma Abedin call Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman to connect him with Chagoury.

Chagoury is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and has appeared on the Clinton Foundation donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor. He’s also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for money laundering. He cut a deal and agreed to repay $66 million to the Nigerian government.”

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173709
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173800

Only on non-violent offenders that make up the majority of the prison population. Studies show putting them in jail does more harm than good.

Maybe the US will finally legalize pot like so many states have too.

on that successful model and repudiated much of her husband’s and Congress’ successful efforts,
Only the part that put non-violent offenders in jail, like people who smoked pot for medical purposes. I am sure you agree with her on that point.
Most of us progressives did not like what Clinton did. Simply jailing someone is shortsighted. It’s better to provide education and jobs and raise the minimum wage.

By the way, pot is much less dangerous than prescription painkillers and alcohol and nicotine. But the prescription drug cartel gets its way thanks to $- just like the fossil fuel industry.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173856

mas cervezas wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

Crime is up in several large cities, ( Chicago, Washington, BC, Baltimore).
Wow, you found a few parts of cities where crime is up even though in almost every city crime is down.

Your post is like crying about how some guy was hit by lightning twice, so clearly there must be an epidemic accross the US.
Did you read my post? If so, did you not see the word “satire?” If you did, do you know it’s meaning?

</eyeroll>

Right wingers are paranoid and delusional. They will wet their pants over any rumor or cherry picked thing despite the facts.
Damn! I fell for obvious satire. Sorry. I am starting to become like them!!!
No, you’re not becoming like them. They don’t ever admit, let alone apologize when they have made an error.

That’s Siobhan so there is no “becoming” lol- she was born that way. She sounds very right wing in some of her statements and doesn’t seem to understand that the whole American political system needs to be upended with someone from a third party who doesn’t worship money.
I have no idea who is this Siobhan to which you refer, but let it be said, this is the first year that I have supported a major party candidate for President since 1992. Now, as it appears, I am back to third patties if I am looking for any representation.
From what people have said that person publicly humilated OutsideTheMatrix (or one of his many former IDs) in this forum, and so he holds so bizarre grudge that no one else cares about. But seriously, who hasn’t embarrassed OutsideTheMatrix?

Anyway, I am sorry about before.
I run about a dozen sites on the web…
And how many IDs have you used in this forum? About a dozen?

I am sorry if people keep humilating you here. Maybe you need to go back to your sites and only post there where facts and reality won’t get in the way.
You wouldn’t know a “fact”
Let’s see who is right.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.
Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.
You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.
Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South.

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,
As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.
Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

— hide signature —

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),
Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,
For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html
Ugh you and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

expanded fracking,
Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,
Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.
This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.
Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.
I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.
He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/college-rape-prosecutors-press-charges_n_5500432.html

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/The%20Legal%20Limit/The%20Legal%20Limit%20Report%204.pdf

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Calgene

http://www.cleanupwashington.org/lobbying/page.cfm?pageid=36

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ann_M._Veneman
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ann_M._Veneman

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174011

No, what we’re talking about is that humanity hasn’t evolved much intellectually from those caveman days- much as we like to think how “civilized” we are. Einstein was referring to humanity being precariously close to weapons of mass destruction destroying our technology and our culture. It applies to any kind of cataclysm- also strong solar flare to gamma ray burst to a megatsunami to a supervolcano eruption to a moderately sized meteorite strike.

No, what we’re talking about is that humanity hasn’t evolved much intellectually from those caveman days- much as we like to think how “civilized” we are. Einstein was referring to humanity being precariously close to weapons of mass destruction destroying our technology and our culture. It applies to any kind of cataclysm- also strong solar flare to gamma ray burst to a megatsunami to a supervolcano eruption to a moderately sized meteorite strike.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173800
It’s a pity that Hillary has now proposed a reverse course
Only on non-violent offenders that make up the majority of the prison population. Studies show putting them in jail does more harm than good.

Maybe the US will finally legalize pot like so many states have too.

on that successful model and repudiated much of her husband’s and Congress’ successful efforts,
Only the part that put non-violent offenders in jail, like people who smoked pot for medical purposes. I am sure you agree with her on that point.
Most of us progressives did not like what Clinton did. Simply jailing someone is shortsighted. It’s better to provide education and jobs and raise the minimum wage.

By the way, pot is much less dangerous than prescription painkillers and alcohol and nicotine. But the prescription drug cartel gets its way thanks to $- just like the fossil fuel industry.

It’s a pity that Hillary has now proposed a reverse course
Only on non-violent offenders that make up the majority of the prison population. Studies show putting them in jail does more harm than good.

Maybe the US will finally legalize pot like so many states have too.

on that successful model and repudiated much of her husband’s and Congress’ successful efforts,
Only the part that put non-violent offenders in jail, like people who smoked pot for medical purposes. I am sure you agree with her on that point.
Most of us progressives did not like what Clinton did. Simply jailing someone is shortsighted. It’s better to provide education and jobs and raise the minimum wage.

By the way, pot is much less dangerous than prescription painkillers and alcohol and nicotine. But the prescription drug cartel gets its way thanks to $- just like the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174051
You left out Vikings, Persians, Indians, etc…

— show signature —
Yes indeed- too many groups to mention. Rewording Lataxe’s original question- we should be probing the origins of fear and violence. It runs deeper than bigotry.

You left out Vikings, Persians, Indians, etc…

— show signature —
Yes indeed- too many groups to mention. Rewording Lataxe’s original question- we should be probing the origins of fear and violence. It runs deeper than bigotry.

You left out Vikings, Persians, Indians, etc…

— show signature —
Yes indeed- too many groups to mention. Rewording Lataxe’s original question- we should be probing the origins of fear and violence. It runs deeper than bigotry.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58162036

Shifter wrote:
You become less racist when you have contact with other races.
Surely that depends on the context of the contact? The article quoted about the institutionalised persecution of the aboriginal population of Australia (which has it’s corresponding persecution in the USA and elsewhere) occurs when the two “races” involved live very close together. Is there a closer relationship than prisoner & guard; or master & slave? Even where there is some form of segregation of housing, city-dwellers of different races live very closely with each other yet some still manage to be virulently racist.

There’s certainly less racism in a social context where people of different skin colours et al have genuinely equal opportunities and contact as peers rather than as superior-inferior. But even then, it’s surprising how many can be perfectly tolerant of others when things go well but instantly revert to racial stereotyping when a serious dispute arises. This tends to occur mutually, too. An angry purple man can be as racist as an angry green one when tempers flare.

****

As Kev mentions, though, it may be that racism is just a rather Victorian manifestation of a more general us&theming that tends to see cohesive groups under threat (real or imagined) revert to a de-humanisation of their perceived enemies. Tribalism. Hatreds arise between religious groups (e.g. the Protestant-Catholic divide of European history, still found in Northern Ireland & Scotland) or even wholly artificial groups (Hutus & Tutsis of Rwanda) where there is no discernible difference in terms of “racial” appearances.

There is also a long history of class divides and “warfare” between them. These still exist today, with a “new aristocracy” of very rich and powerful people seemingly quite happy to regard the hoi-polloi as essentially inferior to themselves and often barely human, thus worthy of both exploitation and degradation.

Consider also the current toxic politics of the USA, with Clinton & Trump supporters (not to mention Democrats & Republicans) convinced that the other lot are demonic and deserving of an utter rout, suppression or even elimination.

From this point of view, Kev’s hope that a melting pot of skin colours and nose shapes will give rise to a new peace-loving single planetary population seems a folorn hope, as humans will invent new differentiations between themselves over which to persecute or go to war.

SirLataxe

Shifter wrote:
You become less racist when you have contact with other races.
Surely that depends on the context of the contact? The article quoted about the institutionalised persecution of the aboriginal population of Australia (which has it’s corresponding persecution in the USA and elsewhere) occurs when the two “races” involved live very close together. Is there a closer relationship than prisoner & guard; or master & slave? Even where there is some form of segregation of housing, city-dwellers of different races live very closely with each other yet some still manage to be virulently racist.

There’s certainly less racism in a social context where people of different skin colours et al have genuinely equal opportunities and contact as peers rather than as superior-inferior. But even then, it’s surprising how many can be perfectly tolerant of others when things go well but instantly revert to racial stereotyping when a serious dispute arises. This tends to occur mutually, too. An angry purple man can be as racist as an angry green one when tempers flare.

****

As Kev mentions, though, it may be that racism is just a rather Victorian manifestation of a more general us&theming that tends to see cohesive groups under threat (real or imagined) revert to a de-humanisation of their perceived enemies. Tribalism. Hatreds arise between religious groups (e.g. the Protestant-Catholic divide of European history, still found in Northern Ireland & Scotland) or even wholly artificial groups (Hutus & Tutsis of Rwanda) where there is no discernible difference in terms of “racial” appearances.

There is also a long history of class divides and “warfare” between them. These still exist today, with a “new aristocracy” of very rich and powerful people seemingly quite happy to regard the hoi-polloi as essentially inferior to themselves and often barely human, thus worthy of both exploitation and degradation.

Consider also the current toxic politics of the USA, with Clinton & Trump supporters (not to mention Democrats & Republicans) convinced that the other lot are demonic and deserving of an utter rout, suppression or even elimination.

From this point of view, Kev’s hope that a melting pot of skin colours and nose shapes will give rise to a new peace-loving single planetary population seems a folorn hope, as humans will invent new differentiations between themselves over which to persecute or go to war.

SirLataxe

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173806
TrapperJohn • Forum Pro • Posts: 14,141
The only thing charitable about the clinton foundation
In reply to MrCentrist • 59 min ago
1
Is calling it a charity.

The CF has notoriously high overhead – about 80% of donations go towards ‘administrative overhead’, that happens to involve hiring people associated with the Clintons: Huma Abedin and Sidney Blumenthal both had high paying jobs with the CF while HC was sec state. (And Huma was supposed to be working for the state dept at the same time, what a busy gal…)

And the money that does make it to charity? The majority funds media sites that are complimentary to the Clintons, such as mediamatters and thinkprogress.

Giving to charity is a good thing.

Giving to the CF isn’t giving to charity, it’s buying the Clinton’s attention.

Chelsea Clinton’s Father-In-Law is Edward Mezvinsky-Truth!

Like father like son apparently. Looks like his son lost 90% of the value of his hedge fund in the Greece debacle but managed to skim $millions before shutting the fund down

Chelsea Clinton’s Father-In-Law is Edward Mezvinsky-Truth!

Like father like son apparently. Looks like his son lost 90% of the value of his hedge fund in the Greece debacle but managed to skim $millions before shutting the fund down

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173646

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/marc-mezvinsky-clinton-hedge-fund-greece

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173774

I like Buffet; Gates, not so much. He has a long history of using dirty takeover tactics. He gave Microsoft a bad name. And his donations always have an ulterior motive- including being tied to companies like Monsanto.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/emails-raise-new-questions-on-ties-between-clinton-foundation-state-department.html

Emails raise new questions on ties between Clinton Foundation, State Department

“In one email exchange released by Judicial Watch, Doug Band, an executive at the Clinton Foundation, tried to put billionaire donor Gilbert Chagoury — a convicted money launderer — in touch with the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon because of the donor’s interests there.

In the email, Band notes that Chagoury is a “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists Clinton aide Huma Abedin call Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman to connect him with Chagoury.

Chagoury is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and has appeared on the Clinton Foundation donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor. He’s also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for money laundering. He cut a deal and agreed to repay $66 million to the Nigerian government.”

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173709
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173800

Only on non-violent offenders that make up the majority of the prison population. Studies show putting them in jail does more harm than good.

Maybe the US will finally legalize pot like so many states have too.

on that successful model and repudiated much of her husband’s and Congress’ successful efforts,
Only the part that put non-violent offenders in jail, like people who smoked pot for medical purposes. I am sure you agree with her on that point.
Most of us progressives did not like what Clinton did. Simply jailing someone is shortsighted. It’s better to provide education and jobs and raise the minimum wage.

By the way, pot is much less dangerous than prescription painkillers and alcohol and nicotine. But the prescription drug cartel gets its way thanks to $- just like the fossil fuel industry.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173856

mas cervezas wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

Crime is up in several large cities, ( Chicago, Washington, BC, Baltimore).
Wow, you found a few parts of cities where crime is up even though in almost every city crime is down.

Your post is like crying about how some guy was hit by lightning twice, so clearly there must be an epidemic accross the US.
Did you read my post? If so, did you not see the word “satire?” If you did, do you know it’s meaning?

</eyeroll>

Right wingers are paranoid and delusional. They will wet their pants over any rumor or cherry picked thing despite the facts.
Damn! I fell for obvious satire. Sorry. I am starting to become like them!!!
No, you’re not becoming like them. They don’t ever admit, let alone apologize when they have made an error.

That’s Siobhan so there is no “becoming” lol- she was born that way. She sounds very right wing in some of her statements and doesn’t seem to understand that the whole American political system needs to be upended with someone from a third party who doesn’t worship money.
I have no idea who is this Siobhan to which you refer, but let it be said, this is the first year that I have supported a major party candidate for President since 1992. Now, as it appears, I am back to third patties if I am looking for any representation.
From what people have said that person publicly humilated OutsideTheMatrix (or one of his many former IDs) in this forum, and so he holds so bizarre grudge that no one else cares about. But seriously, who hasn’t embarrassed OutsideTheMatrix?

Anyway, I am sorry about before.
I run about a dozen sites on the web…
And how many IDs have you used in this forum? About a dozen?

I am sorry if people keep humilating you here. Maybe you need to go back to your sites and only post there where facts and reality won’t get in the way.
You wouldn’t know a “fact”
Let’s see who is right.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.
Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.
You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.
Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South.

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,
As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.
Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

— hide signature —

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),
Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,
For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html
Ugh you and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

expanded fracking,
Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,
Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.
This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.
Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.
I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.
He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/college-rape-prosecutors-press-charges_n_5500432.html

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/The%20Legal%20Limit/The%20Legal%20Limit%20Report%204.pdf

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Calgene

http://www.cleanupwashington.org/lobbying/page.cfm?pageid=36

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ann_M._Veneman
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ann_M._Veneman

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174011

No, what we’re talking about is that humanity hasn’t evolved much intellectually from those caveman days- much as we like to think how “civilized” we are. Einstein was referring to humanity being precariously close to weapons of mass destruction destroying our technology and our culture. It applies to any kind of cataclysm- also strong solar flare to gamma ray burst to a megatsunami to a supervolcano eruption to a moderately sized meteorite strike.

No, what we’re talking about is that humanity hasn’t evolved much intellectually from those caveman days- much as we like to think how “civilized” we are. Einstein was referring to humanity being precariously close to weapons of mass destruction destroying our technology and our culture. It applies to any kind of cataclysm- also strong solar flare to gamma ray burst to a megatsunami to a supervolcano eruption to a moderately sized meteorite strike.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173800
It’s a pity that Hillary has now proposed a reverse course
Only on non-violent offenders that make up the majority of the prison population. Studies show putting them in jail does more harm than good.

Maybe the US will finally legalize pot like so many states have too.

on that successful model and repudiated much of her husband’s and Congress’ successful efforts,
Only the part that put non-violent offenders in jail, like people who smoked pot for medical purposes. I am sure you agree with her on that point.
Most of us progressives did not like what Clinton did. Simply jailing someone is shortsighted. It’s better to provide education and jobs and raise the minimum wage.

By the way, pot is much less dangerous than prescription painkillers and alcohol and nicotine. But the prescription drug cartel gets its way thanks to $- just like the fossil fuel industry.

It’s a pity that Hillary has now proposed a reverse course
Only on non-violent offenders that make up the majority of the prison population. Studies show putting them in jail does more harm than good.

Maybe the US will finally legalize pot like so many states have too.

on that successful model and repudiated much of her husband’s and Congress’ successful efforts,
Only the part that put non-violent offenders in jail, like people who smoked pot for medical purposes. I am sure you agree with her on that point.
Most of us progressives did not like what Clinton did. Simply jailing someone is shortsighted. It’s better to provide education and jobs and raise the minimum wage.

By the way, pot is much less dangerous than prescription painkillers and alcohol and nicotine. But the prescription drug cartel gets its way thanks to $- just like the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174051
You left out Vikings, Persians, Indians, etc…

— show signature —
Yes indeed- too many groups to mention. Rewording Lataxe’s original question- we should be probing the origins of fear and violence. It runs deeper than bigotry.

You left out Vikings, Persians, Indians, etc…

— show signature —
Yes indeed- too many groups to mention. Rewording Lataxe’s original question- we should be probing the origins of fear and violence. It runs deeper than bigotry.

You left out Vikings, Persians, Indians, etc…

— show signature —
Yes indeed- too many groups to mention. Rewording Lataxe’s original question- we should be probing the origins of fear and violence. It runs deeper than bigotry.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58162036

Shifter wrote:
You become less racist when you have contact with other races.
Surely that depends on the context of the contact? The article quoted about the institutionalised persecution of the aboriginal population of Australia (which has it’s corresponding persecution in the USA and elsewhere) occurs when the two “races” involved live very close together. Is there a closer relationship than prisoner & guard; or master & slave? Even where there is some form of segregation of housing, city-dwellers of different races live very closely with each other yet some still manage to be virulently racist.

There’s certainly less racism in a social context where people of different skin colours et al have genuinely equal opportunities and contact as peers rather than as superior-inferior. But even then, it’s surprising how many can be perfectly tolerant of others when things go well but instantly revert to racial stereotyping when a serious dispute arises. This tends to occur mutually, too. An angry purple man can be as racist as an angry green one when tempers flare.

****

As Kev mentions, though, it may be that racism is just a rather Victorian manifestation of a more general us&theming that tends to see cohesive groups under threat (real or imagined) revert to a de-humanisation of their perceived enemies. Tribalism. Hatreds arise between religious groups (e.g. the Protestant-Catholic divide of European history, still found in Northern Ireland & Scotland) or even wholly artificial groups (Hutus & Tutsis of Rwanda) where there is no discernible difference in terms of “racial” appearances.

There is also a long history of class divides and “warfare” between them. These still exist today, with a “new aristocracy” of very rich and powerful people seemingly quite happy to regard the hoi-polloi as essentially inferior to themselves and often barely human, thus worthy of both exploitation and degradation.

Consider also the current toxic politics of the USA, with Clinton & Trump supporters (not to mention Democrats & Republicans) convinced that the other lot are demonic and deserving of an utter rout, suppression or even elimination.

From this point of view, Kev’s hope that a melting pot of skin colours and nose shapes will give rise to a new peace-loving single planetary population seems a folorn hope, as humans will invent new differentiations between themselves over which to persecute or go to war.

SirLataxe

Shifter wrote:
You become less racist when you have contact with other races.
Surely that depends on the context of the contact? The article quoted about the institutionalised persecution of the aboriginal population of Australia (which has it’s corresponding persecution in the USA and elsewhere) occurs when the two “races” involved live very close together. Is there a closer relationship than prisoner & guard; or master & slave? Even where there is some form of segregation of housing, city-dwellers of different races live very closely with each other yet some still manage to be virulently racist.

There’s certainly less racism in a social context where people of different skin colours et al have genuinely equal opportunities and contact as peers rather than as superior-inferior. But even then, it’s surprising how many can be perfectly tolerant of others when things go well but instantly revert to racial stereotyping when a serious dispute arises. This tends to occur mutually, too. An angry purple man can be as racist as an angry green one when tempers flare.

****

As Kev mentions, though, it may be that racism is just a rather Victorian manifestation of a more general us&theming that tends to see cohesive groups under threat (real or imagined) revert to a de-humanisation of their perceived enemies. Tribalism. Hatreds arise between religious groups (e.g. the Protestant-Catholic divide of European history, still found in Northern Ireland & Scotland) or even wholly artificial groups (Hutus & Tutsis of Rwanda) where there is no discernible difference in terms of “racial” appearances.

There is also a long history of class divides and “warfare” between them. These still exist today, with a “new aristocracy” of very rich and powerful people seemingly quite happy to regard the hoi-polloi as essentially inferior to themselves and often barely human, thus worthy of both exploitation and degradation.

Consider also the current toxic politics of the USA, with Clinton & Trump supporters (not to mention Democrats & Republicans) convinced that the other lot are demonic and deserving of an utter rout, suppression or even elimination.

From this point of view, Kev’s hope that a melting pot of skin colours and nose shapes will give rise to a new peace-loving single planetary population seems a folorn hope, as humans will invent new differentiations between themselves over which to persecute or go to war.

SirLataxe

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173806
TrapperJohn • Forum Pro • Posts: 14,141
The only thing charitable about the clinton foundation
In reply to MrCentrist • 59 min ago
1
Is calling it a charity.

The CF has notoriously high overhead – about 80% of donations go towards ‘administrative overhead’, that happens to involve hiring people associated with the Clintons: Huma Abedin and Sidney Blumenthal both had high paying jobs with the CF while HC was sec state. (And Huma was supposed to be working for the state dept at the same time, what a busy gal…)

And the money that does make it to charity? The majority funds media sites that are complimentary to the Clintons, such as mediamatters and thinkprogress.

Giving to charity is a good thing.

Giving to the CF isn’t giving to charity, it’s buying the Clinton’s attention.

Chelsea Clinton’s Father-In-Law is Edward Mezvinsky-Truth!

Like father like son apparently. Looks like his son lost 90% of the value of his hedge fund in the Greece debacle but managed to skim $millions before shutting the fund down

Chelsea Clinton’s Father-In-Law is Edward Mezvinsky-Truth!

Like father like son apparently. Looks like his son lost 90% of the value of his hedge fund in the Greece debacle but managed to skim $millions before shutting the fund down

George Sd Dec 9, 2014
“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

George Sd Dec 9, 2014
“poses a real risk to democratic governance”
I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.
FlagShareReply
Nick
Nick Dec 9, 2014
@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.
FlagShareReply
october271986
october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014
@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014
“poses a real risk to democratic governance”
I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.
FlagShareReply
Nick
Nick Dec 9, 2014
@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.
FlagShareReply
october271986
october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014
@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014
“poses a real risk to democratic governance”
I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.
FlagShareReply
Nick
Nick Dec 9, 2014
@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.
FlagShareReply
october271986
october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014
@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/10/filmmakers-citizen-journalists-justice-department-investigation

A group of more than 40 documentarians, including eight Oscar winners, has called on the justice department to investigate the “harassment” and “targeting” of citizen journalists who record episodes of police violence.

People who film police violence are citizen journalists. We stand with them
Trevor Timm
Trevor Timm Read more
Noting that the citizens who filmed the deaths of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray and Eric Garner were all subsequently arrested, film-maker David Sutcliffe wrote in an open letter to the documentary community that it is “vital we defend the rights of these individuals to use video as a means of criticizing unjust police activity”.

The undersigned film-makers include Going Clear director Alex Gibney, Citizenfour director Laura Poitras, Cartel Land director Matt Heineman and The House I Live In director Eugene Jarecki.

“Mainstream media has paid ample attention to the images captured by these citizen journalists. Largely, it has ignored the methods in which they were recorded and distributed, and the penalties for those involved,” the letter states.

As with other high-profile police killings from the last two years, the cases of Sterling and Castile, which inspired nationwide protests throughout much of July, both gained attention largely through the release of bystander video.

After Sterling was shot by Baton Rouge police officers during a struggle, the two men who posted viral video of the incident, Chris LeDay and Abdullah Muflahi, were both detained by police. LeDay did not record the video but was one of the first people to post it to Facebook and was arrested and shackled the day after posting the video for “fitting a description”, according to the 34-year-old air force veteran. He was later released after paying more than $1,200 in fines for an earlier traffic violation.

‘I dream about it every night’: what happens to Americans who film police violence?
When Feidin Santana filmed Walter Scott’s death, it marked a turning point in the US civil rights movement – and in Santana’s life. He and others who have taken the law into their own hands tell their stories
Read more
Muflahi, the proprietor of the convenience store where Sterling was killed on 5 July, was detained for four hours in the back of a police car while officers searched his store. Muflahi uploaded the second video that depicted Sterling’s death.

Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, the fiancee of Castile, who was killed by an officer during a traffic stop just days after Sterling was shot, was also detained by police after the fatal shooting. Reynolds broadcasted the immediate aftermath of the incident on Facebook Live from the front seat of the couple’s car as she spoke with the Minnesota police officer who fired at Castile, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon in the vehicle.

Reynolds was held overnight by police for questioning, sparking outrage on social media, with activists using the hashtag #whereisLavishReynolds to call attention to her detention. “They treated me like a prisoner,” Reynolds said the following morning, after being released.

The letter, which is attached to a statement directed at the DoJ, calls actions such as this “evidence of a pattern of systemic and vindictive targeting by law enforcement”, adding that the efforts “reveal an intention to suppress footage, intimidate witnesses, control narratives, obscure brutality and punish”.

Citizen journalists such as Reynolds and Muflahi “have made it impossible for white Americans to continue ignoring a truth our leaders have spent centuries obfuscating: black lives matter,” the letter says.

In 2015, Kevin Moore, who filmed the Baltimore police tackling Freddie Gray and pulling him into a police van, was also arrested, and released without charges. Moore alleges that police continue to harass him. “They ride past me taunting me with their phones up,” Moore told Vice News in an interview.

Ramsey Orta, who filmed the fatal chokehold arrest of Eric Garner in Staten Island in 2014, also faced repeated interaction with police after the incident, culminating in an arrest on weapons charges. Orta is currently serving a four-year sentence on a plea deal. He claims police targeted him, and, like Moore, approached him with their phones out on one occasion as a taunt.

The letter calls for more people in the documentary community to join the case, declaring that while “the nature of documentary truth may be slippery”, “the one captured by LeDay, Muflahi, Reynolds, Moore, Orta and so many many more is immutable”.

The justice department did not return a request for comment on whether it would answer the film-makers’ call for investigation.
A group of more than 40 documentarians, including eight Oscar winners, has called on the justice department to investigate the “harassment” and “targeting” of citizen journalists who record episodes of police violence.

People who film police violence are citizen journalists. We stand with them
Trevor Timm
Trevor Timm Read more
Noting that the citizens who filmed the deaths of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray and Eric Garner were all subsequently arrested, film-maker David Sutcliffe wrote in an open letter to the documentary community that it is “vital we defend the rights of these individuals to use video as a means of criticizing unjust police activity”.

The undersigned film-makers include Going Clear director Alex Gibney, Citizenfour director Laura Poitras, Cartel Land director Matt Heineman and The House I Live In director Eugene Jarecki.

“Mainstream media has paid ample attention to the images captured by these citizen journalists. Largely, it has ignored the methods in which they were recorded and distributed, and the penalties for those involved,” the letter states.

As with other high-profile police killings from the last two years, the cases of Sterling and Castile, which inspired nationwide protests throughout much of July, both gained attention largely through the release of bystander video.

After Sterling was shot by Baton Rouge police officers during a struggle, the two men who posted viral video of the incident, Chris LeDay and Abdullah Muflahi, were both detained by police. LeDay did not record the video but was one of the first people to post it to Facebook and was arrested and shackled the day after posting the video for “fitting a description”, according to the 34-year-old air force veteran. He was later released after paying more than $1,200 in fines for an earlier traffic violation.

‘I dream about it every night’: what happens to Americans who film police violence?
When Feidin Santana filmed Walter Scott’s death, it marked a turning point in the US civil rights movement – and in Santana’s life. He and others who have taken the law into their own hands tell their stories
Read more
Muflahi, the proprietor of the convenience store where Sterling was killed on 5 July, was detained for four hours in the back of a police car while officers searched his store. Muflahi uploaded the second video that depicted Sterling’s death.

Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, the fiancee of Castile, who was killed by an officer during a traffic stop just days after Sterling was shot, was also detained by police after the fatal shooting. Reynolds broadcasted the immediate aftermath of the incident on Facebook Live from the front seat of the couple’s car as she spoke with the Minnesota police officer who fired at Castile, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon in the vehicle.

Reynolds was held overnight by police for questioning, sparking outrage on social media, with activists using the hashtag #whereisLavishReynolds to call attention to her detention. “They treated me like a prisoner,” Reynolds said the following morning, after being released.

The letter, which is attached to a statement directed at the DoJ, calls actions such as this “evidence of a pattern of systemic and vindictive targeting by law enforcement”, adding that the efforts “reveal an intention to suppress footage, intimidate witnesses, control narratives, obscure brutality and punish”.

Citizen journalists such as Reynolds and Muflahi “have made it impossible for white Americans to continue ignoring a truth our leaders have spent centuries obfuscating: black lives matter,” the letter says.

In 2015, Kevin Moore, who filmed the Baltimore police tackling Freddie Gray and pulling him into a police van, was also arrested, and released without charges. Moore alleges that police continue to harass him. “They ride past me taunting me with their phones up,” Moore told Vice News in an interview.

Ramsey Orta, who filmed the fatal chokehold arrest of Eric Garner in Staten Island in 2014, also faced repeated interaction with police after the incident, culminating in an arrest on weapons charges. Orta is currently serving a four-year sentence on a plea deal. He claims police targeted him, and, like Moore, approached him with their phones out on one occasion as a taunt.

The letter calls for more people in the documentary community to join the case, declaring that while “the nature of documentary truth may be slippery”, “the one captured by LeDay, Muflahi, Reynolds, Moore, Orta and so many many more is immutable”.

The justice department did not return a request for comment on whether it would answer the film-makers’ call for investigation.

There are a lot of reasons why one can argue that the US has become a police state, many from the media would agree even if they are today in most cases to shy to speak out in the open and please look how militaristic the police has become. If you don´t have the feeling to live in a police state where very step is monitored, vote for ClintonII she will push the project “digital prison” further on. Every step you make…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOZVu9nN0o

There are a lot of reasons why one can argue that the US has become a police state, many from the media would agree even if they are today in most cases to shy to speak out in the open and please look how militaristic the police has become. If you don´t have the feeling to live in a police state where very step is monitored, vote for ClintonII she will push the project “digital prison” further on. Every step you make…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOZVu9nN0o

I´m also no US citizen, nor resident but I find it scary to see the US election. I am not asking them to change anything for me, I only expect that they respect the US constitution, the human rights convention, the geneva conventions and other international law. ClintonII showed in the past that she doesn´t care about the law, more about her sponsors. And there are alternativs, but the corporate media is surpressing them or painting them with lies and misinformation. As one example take Jill Stein and the greens (remember the climate change is coming and ClintonII is surrounded and takes money from the oilindustry and so she lobbied not only in the US for fracking). The world doesn´t need another warmongering Presipuppet in office, ClintonII and her ilk have coursed enough death and destruction in the middle east, south america (Honduras),…, look at the refugees.

http://www.jill2016.com/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html

What Price Victory?

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170950
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173856

mas cervezas wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

Crime is up in several large cities, ( Chicago, Washington, BC, Baltimore).
Wow, you found a few parts of cities where crime is up even though in almost every city crime is down.

Your post is like crying about how some guy was hit by lightning twice, so clearly there must be an epidemic accross the US.
Did you read my post? If so, did you not see the word “satire?” If you did, do you know it’s meaning?

</eyeroll>

Right wingers are paranoid and delusional. They will wet their pants over any rumor or cherry picked thing despite the facts.
Damn! I fell for obvious satire. Sorry. I am starting to become like them!!!
No, you’re not becoming like them. They don’t ever admit, let alone apologize when they have made an error.

That’s Siobhan so there is no “becoming” lol- she was born that way. She sounds very right wing in some of her statements and doesn’t seem to understand that the whole American political system needs to be upended with someone from a third party who doesn’t worship money.
I have no idea who is this Siobhan to which you refer, but let it be said, this is the first year that I have supported a major party candidate for President since 1992. Now, as it appears, I am back to third patties if I am looking for any representation.
From what people have said that person publicly humilated OutsideTheMatrix (or one of his many former IDs) in this forum, and so he holds so bizarre grudge that no one else cares about. But seriously, who hasn’t embarrassed OutsideTheMatrix?

Anyway, I am sorry about before.
I run about a dozen sites on the web…
And how many IDs have you used in this forum? About a dozen?

I am sorry if people keep humilating you here. Maybe you need to go back to your sites and only post there where facts and reality won’t get in the way.
You wouldn’t know a “fact”
Let’s see who is right.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174423

Ole Richard can be something of a closed mind about these matters and many others.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/closed-mind-richard-dawkins

SirLataxe
Are you saying he’s wrong ? Or the others who have written about how our behaviour towards family etc. is linked to how our genes are continued ?
No, not wrong but rather inclined to put these matters in an over-simplified fashion that often ignores other aspects of how we humans are driven.

Firstly, genes are not simple programs that make us do very specific things in very specific circumstances. They’re part of a highly complex whole that behaves in often unpredictable ways, even if there are certain basic behaviours that can be induced in many humans by many kinds of environmental pressures.

Secondly, there’s the whole issue of culture – the traditions of behaviour that are inculcated in us from childhood that are particular to each culture (and time/age) and which can work “against” some of our basic genetic drives.

Of course, genes and memes are in some sense complementary but there is no standard-program human being that always behaves in a very specific way when stimulated with a very specific set of “goads”. Different cultures (and the sub-cultures within them) can cause people to behave in very diverse ways in identical circumstances. Pap reads the Daily Hate Mail and has a xenophobic paroxysm whereas Jules reads it and feels rather sick about it’s rabid rabble rousing.

SirLataxe
Genes turning on or not is in close concert with environmental factors. Even such conditions as autism, food allergies, ADHD, cancer, etc., all have strong environmental components. Which explains why they are rising exponentially.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.
Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.
You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.
Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,
As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.
Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

Let’s see who is right.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.

Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.

You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.

Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,

As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.

Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),

Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,

For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html

You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,

Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,

Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.

This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.

Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.

I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.

He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

Let’s see who is right.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.

Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.

You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.

Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,

As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.

Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),

Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,

For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html

You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,

Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,

Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.

This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.

Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.

I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.

He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.

Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,

As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.

Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),

Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,

For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html

You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,

Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,

Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.

This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.

Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.

I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.

He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.
You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.

Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,

As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.

Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),

Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,

For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html

You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,

Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,

Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.

This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.

Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.

I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.

He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

Ole Richard can be something of a closed mind about these matters and many others.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/closed-mind-richard-dawkins

SirLataxe
Are you saying he’s wrong ? Or the others who have written about how our behaviour towards family etc. is linked to how our genes are continued ?
No, not wrong but rather inclined to put these matters in an over-simplified fashion that often ignores other aspects of how we humans are driven.

Firstly, genes are not simple programs that make us do very specific things in very specific circumstances. They’re part of a highly complex whole that behaves in often unpredictable ways, even if there are certain basic behaviours that can be induced in many humans by many kinds of environmental pressures.

Secondly, there’s the whole issue of culture – the traditions of behaviour that are inculcated in us from childhood that are particular to each culture (and time/age) and which can work “against” some of our basic genetic drives.

Of course, genes and memes are in some sense complementary but there is no standard-program human being that always behaves in a very specific way when stimulated with a very specific set of “goads”. Different cultures (and the sub-cultures within them) can cause people to behave in very diverse ways in identical circumstances. Pap reads the Daily Hate Mail and has a xenophobic paroxysm whereas Jules reads it and feels rather sick about it’s rabid rabble rousing.

SirLataxe
Genes turning on or not is in close concert with environmental factors. Even such conditions as autism, food allergies, ADHD, cancer, etc., all have strong environmental components. Which explains why they are rising exponentially.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174423

No, not wrong but rather inclined to put these matters in an over-simplified fashion that often ignores other aspects of how we humans are driven.

Firstly, genes are not simple programs that make us do very specific things in very specific circumstances. They’re part of a highly complex whole that behaves in often unpredictable ways, even if there are certain basic behaviours that can be induced in many humans by many kinds of environmental pressures.

Secondly, there’s the whole issue of culture – the traditions of behaviour that are inculcated in us from childhood that are particular to each culture (and time/age) and which can work “against” some of our basic genetic drives.

Of course, genes and memes are in some sense complementary but there is no standard-program human being that always behaves in a very specific way when stimulated with a very specific set of “goads”. Different cultures (and the sub-cultures within them) can cause people to behave in very diverse ways in identical circumstances. Pap reads the Daily Hate Mail and has a xenophobic paroxysm whereas Jules reads it and feels rather sick about it’s rabid rabble rousing.

SirLataxe
Genes turning on or not is in close concert with environmental factors. Even such conditions as autism, food allergies, ADHD, cancer, etc., all have strong environmental components. Which explains why they are rising exponentially.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174407

Yes indeed- too many groups to mention. Rewording Lataxe’s original question- we should be probing the origins of fear and violence. It runs deeper than bigotry.
Origins of fear and violence? I think most animals share those.

For humans any group that poses a threat in any way shape or form will generally get bad treatment. This hold true in basically all cultures.

— show signature —
But let’s use other animals as an example. When one breed of cat or dog encounters another breed of cat or dog they don’t behave this way towards each other, they don’t hold such prejudices as humans do. My thought is that the more complex human brain also has more of a tendency to be defective.

Overpopulation and limited resources might also play a role here. Perhaps if other animals felt similar kinds of pressure that humans do they would behave in similar ways.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174011

No, what we’re talking about is that humanity hasn’t evolved much intellectually from those caveman days- much as we like to think how “civilized” we are. Einstein was referring to humanity being precariously close to weapons of mass destruction destroying our technology and our culture. It applies to any kind of cataclysm- also strong solar flare to gamma ray burst to a megatsunami to a supervolcano eruption to a moderately sized meteorite strike.
I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.
FlagShareReply
Nick
Nick Dec 9, 2014
@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.
FlagShareReply
october271986
october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014
@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014
“poses a real risk to democratic governance”
I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.
FlagShareReply
Nick
Nick Dec 9, 2014
@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.
FlagShareReply
october271986
october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014
@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014
“poses a real risk to democratic governance”
I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.
FlagShareReply
Nick
Nick Dec 9, 2014
@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.
FlagShareReply
october271986
october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014
@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/10/filmmakers-citizen-journalists-justice-department-investigation

A group of more than 40 documentarians, including eight Oscar winners, has called on the justice department to investigate the “harassment” and “targeting” of citizen journalists who record episodes of police violence.

People who film police violence are citizen journalists. We stand with them
Trevor Timm
Trevor Timm Read more
Noting that the citizens who filmed the deaths of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray and Eric Garner were all subsequently arrested, film-maker David Sutcliffe wrote in an open letter to the documentary community that it is “vital we defend the rights of these individuals to use video as a means of criticizing unjust police activity”.

The undersigned film-makers include Going Clear director Alex Gibney, Citizenfour director Laura Poitras, Cartel Land director Matt Heineman and The House I Live In director Eugene Jarecki.

“Mainstream media has paid ample attention to the images captured by these citizen journalists. Largely, it has ignored the methods in which they were recorded and distributed, and the penalties for those involved,” the letter states.

As with other high-profile police killings from the last two years, the cases of Sterling and Castile, which inspired nationwide protests throughout much of July, both gained attention largely through the release of bystander video.

After Sterling was shot by Baton Rouge police officers during a struggle, the two men who posted viral video of the incident, Chris LeDay and Abdullah Muflahi, were both detained by police. LeDay did not record the video but was one of the first people to post it to Facebook and was arrested and shackled the day after posting the video for “fitting a description”, according to the 34-year-old air force veteran. He was later released after paying more than $1,200 in fines for an earlier traffic violation.

‘I dream about it every night’: what happens to Americans who film police violence?
When Feidin Santana filmed Walter Scott’s death, it marked a turning point in the US civil rights movement – and in Santana’s life. He and others who have taken the law into their own hands tell their stories
Read more
Muflahi, the proprietor of the convenience store where Sterling was killed on 5 July, was detained for four hours in the back of a police car while officers searched his store. Muflahi uploaded the second video that depicted Sterling’s death.

Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, the fiancee of Castile, who was killed by an officer during a traffic stop just days after Sterling was shot, was also detained by police after the fatal shooting. Reynolds broadcasted the immediate aftermath of the incident on Facebook Live from the front seat of the couple’s car as she spoke with the Minnesota police officer who fired at Castile, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon in the vehicle.

Reynolds was held overnight by police for questioning, sparking outrage on social media, with activists using the hashtag #whereisLavishReynolds to call attention to her detention. “They treated me like a prisoner,” Reynolds said the following morning, after being released.

The letter, which is attached to a statement directed at the DoJ, calls actions such as this “evidence of a pattern of systemic and vindictive targeting by law enforcement”, adding that the efforts “reveal an intention to suppress footage, intimidate witnesses, control narratives, obscure brutality and punish”.

Citizen journalists such as Reynolds and Muflahi “have made it impossible for white Americans to continue ignoring a truth our leaders have spent centuries obfuscating: black lives matter,” the letter says.

In 2015, Kevin Moore, who filmed the Baltimore police tackling Freddie Gray and pulling him into a police van, was also arrested, and released without charges. Moore alleges that police continue to harass him. “They ride past me taunting me with their phones up,” Moore told Vice News in an interview.

Ramsey Orta, who filmed the fatal chokehold arrest of Eric Garner in Staten Island in 2014, also faced repeated interaction with police after the incident, culminating in an arrest on weapons charges. Orta is currently serving a four-year sentence on a plea deal. He claims police targeted him, and, like Moore, approached him with their phones out on one occasion as a taunt.

The letter calls for more people in the documentary community to join the case, declaring that while “the nature of documentary truth may be slippery”, “the one captured by LeDay, Muflahi, Reynolds, Moore, Orta and so many many more is immutable”.

The justice department did not return a request for comment on whether it would answer the film-makers’ call for investigation.
A group of more than 40 documentarians, including eight Oscar winners, has called on the justice department to investigate the “harassment” and “targeting” of citizen journalists who record episodes of police violence.

People who film police violence are citizen journalists. We stand with them
Trevor Timm
Trevor Timm Read more
Noting that the citizens who filmed the deaths of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray and Eric Garner were all subsequently arrested, film-maker David Sutcliffe wrote in an open letter to the documentary community that it is “vital we defend the rights of these individuals to use video as a means of criticizing unjust police activity”.

The undersigned film-makers include Going Clear director Alex Gibney, Citizenfour director Laura Poitras, Cartel Land director Matt Heineman and The House I Live In director Eugene Jarecki.

“Mainstream media has paid ample attention to the images captured by these citizen journalists. Largely, it has ignored the methods in which they were recorded and distributed, and the penalties for those involved,” the letter states.

As with other high-profile police killings from the last two years, the cases of Sterling and Castile, which inspired nationwide protests throughout much of July, both gained attention largely through the release of bystander video.

After Sterling was shot by Baton Rouge police officers during a struggle, the two men who posted viral video of the incident, Chris LeDay and Abdullah Muflahi, were both detained by police. LeDay did not record the video but was one of the first people to post it to Facebook and was arrested and shackled the day after posting the video for “fitting a description”, according to the 34-year-old air force veteran. He was later released after paying more than $1,200 in fines for an earlier traffic violation.

‘I dream about it every night’: what happens to Americans who film police violence?
When Feidin Santana filmed Walter Scott’s death, it marked a turning point in the US civil rights movement – and in Santana’s life. He and others who have taken the law into their own hands tell their stories
Read more
Muflahi, the proprietor of the convenience store where Sterling was killed on 5 July, was detained for four hours in the back of a police car while officers searched his store. Muflahi uploaded the second video that depicted Sterling’s death.

Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, the fiancee of Castile, who was killed by an officer during a traffic stop just days after Sterling was shot, was also detained by police after the fatal shooting. Reynolds broadcasted the immediate aftermath of the incident on Facebook Live from the front seat of the couple’s car as she spoke with the Minnesota police officer who fired at Castile, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon in the vehicle.

Reynolds was held overnight by police for questioning, sparking outrage on social media, with activists using the hashtag #whereisLavishReynolds to call attention to her detention. “They treated me like a prisoner,” Reynolds said the following morning, after being released.

The letter, which is attached to a statement directed at the DoJ, calls actions such as this “evidence of a pattern of systemic and vindictive targeting by law enforcement”, adding that the efforts “reveal an intention to suppress footage, intimidate witnesses, control narratives, obscure brutality and punish”.

Citizen journalists such as Reynolds and Muflahi “have made it impossible for white Americans to continue ignoring a truth our leaders have spent centuries obfuscating: black lives matter,” the letter says.

In 2015, Kevin Moore, who filmed the Baltimore police tackling Freddie Gray and pulling him into a police van, was also arrested, and released without charges. Moore alleges that police continue to harass him. “They ride past me taunting me with their phones up,” Moore told Vice News in an interview.

Ramsey Orta, who filmed the fatal chokehold arrest of Eric Garner in Staten Island in 2014, also faced repeated interaction with police after the incident, culminating in an arrest on weapons charges. Orta is currently serving a four-year sentence on a plea deal. He claims police targeted him, and, like Moore, approached him with their phones out on one occasion as a taunt.

The letter calls for more people in the documentary community to join the case, declaring that while “the nature of documentary truth may be slippery”, “the one captured by LeDay, Muflahi, Reynolds, Moore, Orta and so many many more is immutable”.

The justice department did not return a request for comment on whether it would answer the film-makers’ call for investigation.

There are a lot of reasons why one can argue that the US has become a police state, many from the media would agree even if they are today in most cases to shy to speak out in the open and please look how militaristic the police has become. If you don´t have the feeling to live in a police state where very step is monitored, vote for ClintonII she will push the project “digital prison” further on. Every step you make…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOZVu9nN0o

There are a lot of reasons why one can argue that the US has become a police state, many from the media would agree even if they are today in most cases to shy to speak out in the open and please look how militaristic the police has become. If you don´t have the feeling to live in a police state where very step is monitored, vote for ClintonII she will push the project “digital prison” further on. Every step you make…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOZVu9nN0o

I´m also no US citizen, nor resident but I find it scary to see the US election. I am not asking them to change anything for me, I only expect that they respect the US constitution, the human rights convention, the geneva conventions and other international law. ClintonII showed in the past that she doesn´t care about the law, more about her sponsors. And there are alternativs, but the corporate media is surpressing them or painting them with lies and misinformation. As one example take Jill Stein and the greens (remember the climate change is coming and ClintonII is surrounded and takes money from the oilindustry and so she lobbied not only in the US for fracking). The world doesn´t need another warmongering Presipuppet in office, ClintonII and her ilk have coursed enough death and destruction in the middle east, south america (Honduras),…, look at the refugees.

http://www.jill2016.com/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html

What Price Victory?

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170950
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173856

mas cervezas wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

Crime is up in several large cities, ( Chicago, Washington, BC, Baltimore).
Wow, you found a few parts of cities where crime is up even though in almost every city crime is down.

Your post is like crying about how some guy was hit by lightning twice, so clearly there must be an epidemic accross the US.
Did you read my post? If so, did you not see the word “satire?” If you did, do you know it’s meaning?

</eyeroll>

Right wingers are paranoid and delusional. They will wet their pants over any rumor or cherry picked thing despite the facts.
Damn! I fell for obvious satire. Sorry. I am starting to become like them!!!
No, you’re not becoming like them. They don’t ever admit, let alone apologize when they have made an error.

That’s Siobhan so there is no “becoming” lol- she was born that way. She sounds very right wing in some of her statements and doesn’t seem to understand that the whole American political system needs to be upended with someone from a third party who doesn’t worship money.
I have no idea who is this Siobhan to which you refer, but let it be said, this is the first year that I have supported a major party candidate for President since 1992. Now, as it appears, I am back to third patties if I am looking for any representation.
From what people have said that person publicly humilated OutsideTheMatrix (or one of his many former IDs) in this forum, and so he holds so bizarre grudge that no one else cares about. But seriously, who hasn’t embarrassed OutsideTheMatrix?

Anyway, I am sorry about before.
I run about a dozen sites on the web…
And how many IDs have you used in this forum? About a dozen?

I am sorry if people keep humilating you here. Maybe you need to go back to your sites and only post there where facts and reality won’t get in the way.
You wouldn’t know a “fact”
Let’s see who is right.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174423

Ole Richard can be something of a closed mind about these matters and many others.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/closed-mind-richard-dawkins

SirLataxe
Are you saying he’s wrong ? Or the others who have written about how our behaviour towards family etc. is linked to how our genes are continued ?
No, not wrong but rather inclined to put these matters in an over-simplified fashion that often ignores other aspects of how we humans are driven.

Firstly, genes are not simple programs that make us do very specific things in very specific circumstances. They’re part of a highly complex whole that behaves in often unpredictable ways, even if there are certain basic behaviours that can be induced in many humans by many kinds of environmental pressures.

Secondly, there’s the whole issue of culture – the traditions of behaviour that are inculcated in us from childhood that are particular to each culture (and time/age) and which can work “against” some of our basic genetic drives.

Of course, genes and memes are in some sense complementary but there is no standard-program human being that always behaves in a very specific way when stimulated with a very specific set of “goads”. Different cultures (and the sub-cultures within them) can cause people to behave in very diverse ways in identical circumstances. Pap reads the Daily Hate Mail and has a xenophobic paroxysm whereas Jules reads it and feels rather sick about it’s rabid rabble rousing.

SirLataxe
Genes turning on or not is in close concert with environmental factors. Even such conditions as autism, food allergies, ADHD, cancer, etc., all have strong environmental components. Which explains why they are rising exponentially.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.
Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.
You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.
Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,
As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.
Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

Let’s see who is right.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.

Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.

You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.

Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,

As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.

Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),

Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,

For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html

You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,

Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,

Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.

This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.

Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.

I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.

He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

Let’s see who is right.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.

Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.

You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.

Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,

As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.

Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),

Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,

For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html

You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,

Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,

Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.

This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.

Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.

I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.

He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.

Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,

As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.

Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),

Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,

For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html

You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,

Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,

Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.

This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.

Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.

I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.

He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.
You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.

Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,

As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.

Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),

Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,

For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html

You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,

Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,

Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.

This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.

Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.

I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.

He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

Ole Richard can be something of a closed mind about these matters and many others.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/closed-mind-richard-dawkins

SirLataxe
Are you saying he’s wrong ? Or the others who have written about how our behaviour towards family etc. is linked to how our genes are continued ?
No, not wrong but rather inclined to put these matters in an over-simplified fashion that often ignores other aspects of how we humans are driven.

Firstly, genes are not simple programs that make us do very specific things in very specific circumstances. They’re part of a highly complex whole that behaves in often unpredictable ways, even if there are certain basic behaviours that can be induced in many humans by many kinds of environmental pressures.

Secondly, there’s the whole issue of culture – the traditions of behaviour that are inculcated in us from childhood that are particular to each culture (and time/age) and which can work “against” some of our basic genetic drives.

Of course, genes and memes are in some sense complementary but there is no standard-program human being that always behaves in a very specific way when stimulated with a very specific set of “goads”. Different cultures (and the sub-cultures within them) can cause people to behave in very diverse ways in identical circumstances. Pap reads the Daily Hate Mail and has a xenophobic paroxysm whereas Jules reads it and feels rather sick about it’s rabid rabble rousing.

SirLataxe
Genes turning on or not is in close concert with environmental factors. Even such conditions as autism, food allergies, ADHD, cancer, etc., all have strong environmental components. Which explains why they are rising exponentially.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174423

No, not wrong but rather inclined to put these matters in an over-simplified fashion that often ignores other aspects of how we humans are driven.

Firstly, genes are not simple programs that make us do very specific things in very specific circumstances. They’re part of a highly complex whole that behaves in often unpredictable ways, even if there are certain basic behaviours that can be induced in many humans by many kinds of environmental pressures.

Secondly, there’s the whole issue of culture – the traditions of behaviour that are inculcated in us from childhood that are particular to each culture (and time/age) and which can work “against” some of our basic genetic drives.

Of course, genes and memes are in some sense complementary but there is no standard-program human being that always behaves in a very specific way when stimulated with a very specific set of “goads”. Different cultures (and the sub-cultures within them) can cause people to behave in very diverse ways in identical circumstances. Pap reads the Daily Hate Mail and has a xenophobic paroxysm whereas Jules reads it and feels rather sick about it’s rabid rabble rousing.

SirLataxe
Genes turning on or not is in close concert with environmental factors. Even such conditions as autism, food allergies, ADHD, cancer, etc., all have strong environmental components. Which explains why they are rising exponentially.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174407

Yes indeed- too many groups to mention. Rewording Lataxe’s original question- we should be probing the origins of fear and violence. It runs deeper than bigotry.
Origins of fear and violence? I think most animals share those.

For humans any group that poses a threat in any way shape or form will generally get bad treatment. This hold true in basically all cultures.

— show signature —
But let’s use other animals as an example. When one breed of cat or dog encounters another breed of cat or dog they don’t behave this way towards each other, they don’t hold such prejudices as humans do. My thought is that the more complex human brain also has more of a tendency to be defective.

Overpopulation and limited resources might also play a role here. Perhaps if other animals felt similar kinds of pressure that humans do they would behave in similar ways.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58174011

No, what we’re talking about is that humanity hasn’t evolved much intellectually from those caveman days- much as we like to think how “civilized” we are. Einstein was referring to humanity being precariously close to weapons of mass destruction destroying our technology and our culture. It applies to any kind of cataclysm- also strong solar flare to gamma ray burst to a megatsunami to a supervolcano eruption to a moderately sized meteorite strike.

FlagShare1Javier GonzalezLikeReply
JNewman
JNewman Feb 3, 2015
“…a voter initiative that, if successful in November, would require most foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such in the state.”

Great scott! Think of the unadulterated chaos that would ensue if there was additional information on a food label! These anarchists must at all cost be stopped!
Yeah, asking for more labeling of foods is definitely on par with climate denial, which scientists predict will cause widespread human suffering if left unchecked, or anti-vaccination, which can cause other people to get sick or die in large numbers. Yeah, asking for more information on a food label is pretty much the same thing, probably if people knew which foods contained GMO ingredients (as they do in Europe) the country would almost definitely collapse in a few years. Ten tops. Spot-on comparison.
FlagShareLikeReply
jyo
jyo Feb 3, 2015
@JNewman what the goal of labeling the food? Just by putting GMO on the food tells the common consumer nothing.
FlagShareLikeReply
Javier Gonzalez
Javier Gonzalez Feb 19, 2015
@jyo @JNewman Yes idiot, it tells them it is GMO.
FlagShareLikeReply
jyo
jyo Feb 3, 2015
@JNewman you actually sound alot like the antivaxxers. There is no scientific evidence that GMOs cause health problems yet you like them are convinced that it is.
FlagShareLikeReply
MemeInjector3000
MemeInjector3000 Feb 4, 2015
@jyo @JNewman There is plenty of peer-reviewed data on all the other problems with GMOs besides safety: they have resulted in increased overall pesticide/herbicide usage (which does have deleterious health effects), they show no significant yield improvement for many crops, they kill non-target species, and they pollute neighboring non-GM fields.

Ag biotech apologists are so predictable.
FlagShare1Javier GonzalezLikeReply
Javier Gonzalez
Javier Gonzalez Feb 19, 2015
@jyo @JNewman Non-sequitur.
GMOs cause autism, cancer, Alzheimers, and Parkinson
FlagShareLikeReply
Origin of Truth
Origin of Truth Jun 20, 2014
iF GMO’s are so safe,and the levels of “Roundup” in ou food not a problem, then why not label them proudly, and nullify the “:Exemption from Prosecution”, Monsanto rammed through the Supreme Court. Also what about the cross-pollination , that threatens other varieties with contamination, or extinction!!! The GREED of corporations has no concern for “future generations”.
FlagShare2Javier GonzalezMemeInjector3000LikeReply
MemeInjector3000
MemeInjector3000 Feb 4, 2015
@Origin of Truth Ethics are irrelevant. GM crops were designed for one reason and one reason only: to create a bigger market for the pesticides that the biotech firms also conveniently sell and thus increase quarterly revenues. Capitalism 101.

(¯¥¯`·._§tå®®¥™_.·´¯¥¯) (¯¥¯`·._Юèå|\/|§™_.·´¯¥¯) just now
I am a scientist who supports GMO but do not support companies like Monsanto or Bayer that have a long history of polluting the environment. Monsanto is currently being sued by several cities, including Seattle and San Diego, for PCB pollution (like what they did to the groundwater in Anniston, AL) and of course there is the whole Agent Orange fiasco. Many scientists who work in biotech do not like Monsanto and are developing GMO that will not need glyphosate- for the reasons that the scientist a few posts above me mentioned (in addition to that, glyphosate is now meeting with much greater weed resistance so even more dangerous pesticides like Enlist-Duo are being used, which is connected to breast cancer, while the World Health Oranization has linked glyphosate to lymphoma in a meta-analysis of 34 studies.) There is also the matter of tighter regulations, like they have in Europe, something which the American Medical Association has been calling for.
I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)
And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA
Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07
NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.
The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”
http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA
Monica Eng
Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story
The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.
Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.
Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.
“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.
On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”
The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.
“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”
Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”
The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.
In that Slate article, they mention Ken Folta at the University of Florida. He has already come under fire and exposed in a New York Times article (and others) for taking large payments from Monsanto- which was revealed via numerous Freedom of Information Act requests.

Javier Gonzalez
Javier Gonzalez Feb 19, 2015
Kloor isa liar.
Dr. Seralini is a hero to everybody with relatives with cancer.
FlagShareLikeReply
MemeInjector3000
MemeInjector3000 Feb 4, 2015
Kloor is a liar… or at least very, very stupid. The actual data clearly show that GMO skepticism is NOT a liberal issue. See:
Stop pretending that liberals are just as anti-science as conservatives

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173856

mas cervezas wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

Crime is up in several large cities, ( Chicago, Washington, BC, Baltimore).

Wow, you found a few parts of cities where crime is up even though in almost every city crime is down.

Your post is like crying about how some guy was hit by lightning twice, so clearly there must be an epidemic accross the US.

Did you read my post? If so, did you not see the word “satire?” If you did, do you know it’s meaning?

</eyeroll>

Right wingers are paranoid and delusional. They will wet their pants over any rumor or cherry picked thing despite the facts.

Damn! I fell for obvious satire. Sorry. I am starting to become like them!!!

No, you’re not becoming like them. They don’t ever admit, let alone apologize when they have made an error.

That’s Siobhan so there is no “becoming” lol- she was born that way. She sounds very right wing in some of her statements and doesn’t seem to understand that the whole American political system needs to be upended with someone from a third party who doesn’t worship money.

I have no idea who is this Siobhan to which you refer, but let it be said, this is the first year that I have supported a major party candidate for President since 1992. Now, as it appears, I am back to third patties if I am looking for any representation.

From what people have said that person publicly humilated OutsideTheMatrix (or one of his many former IDs) in this forum, and so he holds so bizarre grudge that no one else cares about. But seriously, who hasn’t embarrassed OutsideTheMatrix?

Anyway, I am sorry about before.

I run about a dozen sites on the web…

And how many IDs have you used in this forum? About a dozen?

I am sorry if people keep humilating you here. Maybe you need to go back to your sites and only post there where facts and reality won’t get in the way.

You wouldn’t know a “fact”

Let’s see who is right.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.
Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.
You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.
Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,
As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.
Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

Javier Gonzalez

Javier Gonzalez Feb 19, 2015

Kloor isa liar.

Dr. Seralini is a hero to everybody with relatives with cancer.

FlagShareLikeReply

MemeInjector3000

MemeInjector3000 Feb 4, 2015

Kloor is a liar… or at least very, very stupid. The actual data clearly show that GMO skepticism is NOT a liberal issue. See:

Stop pretending that liberals are just as anti-science as conservatives

FlagShare1Javier GonzalezLikeReply

JNewman

JNewman Feb 3, 2015

“…a voter initiative that, if successful in November, would require most foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such in the state.”

Great scott! Think of the unadulterated chaos that would ensue if there was additional information on a food label! These anarchists must at all cost be stopped!

Yeah, asking for more labeling of foods is definitely on par with climate denial, which scientists predict will cause widespread human suffering if left unchecked, or anti-vaccination, which can cause other people to get sick or die in large numbers. Yeah, asking for more information on a food label is pretty much the same thing, probably if people knew which foods contained GMO ingredients (as they do in Europe) the country would almost definitely collapse in a few years. Ten tops. Spot-on comparison.

FlagShareLikeReply

jyo

jyo Feb 3, 2015

@JNewman what the goal of labeling the food? Just by putting GMO on the food tells the common consumer nothing.

FlagShareLikeReply

Javier Gonzalez

Javier Gonzalez Feb 19, 2015

@jyo @JNewman Yes idiot, it tells them it is GMO.

FlagShareLikeReply

jyo

jyo Feb 3, 2015

@JNewman you actually sound alot like the antivaxxers. There is no scientific evidence that GMOs cause health problems yet you like them are convinced that it is.

FlagShareLikeReply

MemeInjector3000

MemeInjector3000 Feb 4, 2015

@jyo @JNewman There is plenty of peer-reviewed data on all the other problems with GMOs besides safety: they have resulted in increased overall pesticide/herbicide usage (which does have deleterious health effects), they show no significant yield improvement for many crops, they kill non-target species, and they pollute neighboring non-GM fields.

Ag biotech apologists are so predictable.

FlagShare1Javier GonzalezLikeReply

Javier Gonzalez

Javier Gonzalez Feb 19, 2015

@jyo @JNewman Non-sequitur.

GMOs cause autism, cancer, Alzheimers, and Parkinson

FlagShareLikeReply

Origin of Truth

Origin of Truth Jun 20, 2014

iF GMO’s are so safe,and the levels of “Roundup” in ou food not a problem, then why not label them proudly, and nullify the “:Exemption from Prosecution”, Monsanto rammed through the Supreme Court. Also what about the cross-pollination , that threatens other varieties with contamination, or extinction!!! The GREED of corporations has no concern for “future generations”.

FlagShare2Javier GonzalezMemeInjector3000LikeReply

MemeInjector3000

MemeInjector3000 Feb 4, 2015

@Origin of Truth Ethics are irrelevant. GM crops were designed for one reason and one reason only: to create a bigger market for the pesticides that the biotech firms also conveniently sell and thus increase quarterly revenues. Capitalism 101.

(¯¥¯`·._§tå®®¥™_.·´¯¥¯) (¯¥¯`·._Юèå|\/|§™_.·´¯¥¯) just now

I am a scientist who supports GMO but do not support companies like Monsanto or Bayer that have a long history of polluting the environment. Monsanto is currently being sued by several cities, including Seattle and San Diego, for PCB pollution (like what they did to the groundwater in Anniston, AL) and of course there is the whole Agent Orange fiasco. Many scientists who work in biotech do not like Monsanto and are developing GMO that will not need glyphosate- for the reasons that the scientist a few posts above me mentioned (in addition to that, glyphosate is now meeting with much greater weed resistance so even more dangerous pesticides like Enlist-Duo are being used, which is connected to breast cancer, while the World Health Oranization has linked glyphosate to lymphoma in a meta-analysis of 34 studies.) There is also the matter of tighter regulations, like they have in Europe, something which the American Medical Association has been calling for.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

In that Slate article, they mention Ken Folta at the University of Florida. He has already come under fire and exposed in a New York Times article (and others) for taking large payments from Monsanto- which was revealed via numerous Freedom of Information Act requests.

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),
Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,
For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html
You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,
Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,
Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.
This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.
Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.
I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.
He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

GM Myths and Truths: A critical review of the science

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/obama-signs-bill-requiring-labeling-of-gmo-foods/2016/07/29/1f071d66-55d2-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html

 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173856

mas cervezas wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

MrCentrist wrote:

glasswave wrote:

Crime is up in several large cities, ( Chicago, Washington, BC, Baltimore).

Wow, you found a few parts of cities where crime is up even though in almost every city crime is down.

Your post is like crying about how some guy was hit by lightning twice, so clearly there must be an epidemic accross the US.

Did you read my post? If so, did you not see the word “satire?” If you did, do you know it’s meaning?

</eyeroll>

Right wingers are paranoid and delusional. They will wet their pants over any rumor or cherry picked thing despite the facts.

Damn! I fell for obvious satire. Sorry. I am starting to become like them!!!

No, you’re not becoming like them. They don’t ever admit, let alone apologize when they have made an error.

That’s Siobhan so there is no “becoming” lol- she was born that way. She sounds very right wing in some of her statements and doesn’t seem to understand that the whole American political system needs to be upended with someone from a third party who doesn’t worship money.

I have no idea who is this Siobhan to which you refer, but let it be said, this is the first year that I have supported a major party candidate for President since 1992. Now, as it appears, I am back to third patties if I am looking for any representation.

From what people have said that person publicly humilated OutsideTheMatrix (or one of his many former IDs) in this forum, and so he holds so bizarre grudge that no one else cares about. But seriously, who hasn’t embarrassed OutsideTheMatrix?

Anyway, I am sorry about before.

I run about a dozen sites on the web…

And how many IDs have you used in this forum? About a dozen?

I am sorry if people keep humilating you here. Maybe you need to go back to your sites and only post there where facts and reality won’t get in the way.

You wouldn’t know a “fact”

Let’s see who is right.

Do you agree that duing the Obama adminstration the crime rate has been lower than anytime during the GW Bush, GH Bush, and Reagan adminstrations? Yes or No.
Sure. But he was also known as the deporter-in-chief and true progressives like Dr. Cornelius West were disappointed in his lack of accomplishing what he promised.
You mean the democratic socialist Dr. Cornel West?

By the way, President Obama never ran as a progressive, he was a pretty middle-of-the-road centrist even on the campaign trail.
Thats the problem. You have people in the South who simply aren’t progressive enough to elect what America truly needs- which is a government based on the Nordic Model which allows for a much higher standard of living in those countries (and longer life expectancy too.) Democratic Socialism is the ideal. I’ve long wanted the North and South to separate so we don’t have to be shackled down by the South’s conservative ideals. I can’t even stand the so-called Southern “demoncrats.” I will never step foot in the South. Princeton University did a long study that proved that America is an oligarchy (something we’ve discussed before.) Surely a socialist democracy is far better than that (as proven by the high standard of living of countries like Norway, Iceland and Denmark.)

He put people from corrupt companies like Merck and Monsanto in positions of regulatory power,
As much as I distrust Monsanto, most of the foot traffic goes from government to Monsanto, not the other way around.
Guys like Michael Taylor and Clarence Thomas have no business being allowed into government positions. And it isn’t just them- companies like Merck have an undue influence in the FDA- and corporations should not be allowed to control the regulatory process. A few years ago they were found to be given paid vacation trips to FDA employees! The connection between agribusiness and the USDA is just as dire- as the industry is basically allowed to regulate itself. Also see my post about what’s going on at the EPA and our water. America has consistently erred in favor of corporations over public safety- which is why we have all these superfund sites now. And they span every industry- from agribusiness to fossil fuel to pharmaceutical. Also, wikileaks released cables a few years ago showing that the Bush Administration was trying to push for Monsanto products to be accepted into the EC.

Javier Gonzalez

Javier Gonzalez Feb 19, 2015

Kloor isa liar.

Dr. Seralini is a hero to everybody with relatives with cancer.

FlagShareLikeReply

MemeInjector3000

MemeInjector3000 Feb 4, 2015

Kloor is a liar… or at least very, very stupid. The actual data clearly show that GMO skepticism is NOT a liberal issue. See:

Stop pretending that liberals are just as anti-science as conservatives

FlagShare1Javier GonzalezLikeReply

JNewman

JNewman Feb 3, 2015

“…a voter initiative that, if successful in November, would require most foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such in the state.”

Great scott! Think of the unadulterated chaos that would ensue if there was additional information on a food label! These anarchists must at all cost be stopped!

Yeah, asking for more labeling of foods is definitely on par with climate denial, which scientists predict will cause widespread human suffering if left unchecked, or anti-vaccination, which can cause other people to get sick or die in large numbers. Yeah, asking for more information on a food label is pretty much the same thing, probably if people knew which foods contained GMO ingredients (as they do in Europe) the country would almost definitely collapse in a few years. Ten tops. Spot-on comparison.

FlagShareLikeReply

jyo

jyo Feb 3, 2015

@JNewman what the goal of labeling the food? Just by putting GMO on the food tells the common consumer nothing.

FlagShareLikeReply

Javier Gonzalez

Javier Gonzalez Feb 19, 2015

@jyo @JNewman Yes idiot, it tells them it is GMO.

FlagShareLikeReply

jyo

jyo Feb 3, 2015

@JNewman you actually sound alot like the antivaxxers. There is no scientific evidence that GMOs cause health problems yet you like them are convinced that it is.

FlagShareLikeReply

MemeInjector3000

MemeInjector3000 Feb 4, 2015

@jyo @JNewman There is plenty of peer-reviewed data on all the other problems with GMOs besides safety: they have resulted in increased overall pesticide/herbicide usage (which does have deleterious health effects), they show no significant yield improvement for many crops, they kill non-target species, and they pollute neighboring non-GM fields.

Ag biotech apologists are so predictable.

FlagShare1Javier GonzalezLikeReply

Javier Gonzalez

Javier Gonzalez Feb 19, 2015

@jyo @JNewman Non-sequitur.

GMOs cause autism, cancer, Alzheimers, and Parkinson

FlagShareLikeReply

Origin of Truth

Origin of Truth Jun 20, 2014

iF GMO’s are so safe,and the levels of “Roundup” in ou food not a problem, then why not label them proudly, and nullify the “:Exemption from Prosecution”, Monsanto rammed through the Supreme Court. Also what about the cross-pollination , that threatens other varieties with contamination, or extinction!!! The GREED of corporations has no concern for “future generations”.

FlagShare2Javier GonzalezMemeInjector3000LikeReply

MemeInjector3000

MemeInjector3000 Feb 4, 2015

@Origin of Truth Ethics are irrelevant. GM crops were designed for one reason and one reason only: to create a bigger market for the pesticides that the biotech firms also conveniently sell and thus increase quarterly revenues. Capitalism 101.

(¯¥¯`·._§tå®®¥™_.·´¯¥¯) (¯¥¯`·._Юèå|\/|§™_.·´¯¥¯) just now

I am a scientist who supports GMO but do not support companies like Monsanto or Bayer that have a long history of polluting the environment. Monsanto is currently being sued by several cities, including Seattle and San Diego, for PCB pollution (like what they did to the groundwater in Anniston, AL) and of course there is the whole Agent Orange fiasco. Many scientists who work in biotech do not like Monsanto and are developing GMO that will not need glyphosate- for the reasons that the scientist a few posts above me mentioned (in addition to that, glyphosate is now meeting with much greater weed resistance so even more dangerous pesticides like Enlist-Duo are being used, which is connected to breast cancer, while the World Health Oranization has linked glyphosate to lymphoma in a meta-analysis of 34 studies.) There is also the matter of tighter regulations, like they have in Europe, something which the American Medical Association has been calling for.

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

In that Slate article, they mention Ken Folta at the University of Florida. He has already come under fire and exposed in a New York Times article (and others) for taking large payments from Monsanto- which was revealed via numerous Freedom of Information Act requests.

http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

Monica Eng

Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

From the metabunk link itself a concerned scientist posted this:

I’m a biological scientist with the primary concern over GMO crops being a continuation of the same concerns I already had with mass production of clonal hybrids and mechanized sterilized agriculture in general. Ecological stuff and also a risk to the food supply if some novel pathogen sets on a massive staple crop that lacks the genetic diversity to cope. Hell, a lot of the mass produced fruit was tasting like crap just because hybrids were selected for shelf life and truck-ability. But then again I can get a wide selection of fruits and veggies year round that would not be the case in a “traditional” agriculture system.

He is correct about lack of genetic diversity in our crops- it’s a major concern that the vast majority (over 90%) of our food comes from just six crops. Massive problems even if just one of those crops gets hit by disease. Then there are also the concerns with glyphosate, developing weed resistance and the usage of even more dangerous pesticides like 2-4, D. Nonprofit GMO developers like universities and nonprofits are a better choice since they are working on crops that do not need glyphosate (or any pesticide) and work by enhancing the “immune systems” of the plants- much like some drug companies are working on immune boosting drugs that solve the antibiotics resistance problem (which is a real issue, not just in people but on the overusage of antibiotics and hormones in farm animals, too.)

https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/

he failed to shut down Guantanamo (yes, the Congress played a role in that too),
Played a role? You mean completely prevented it.

failed to prosecute those who tortured,
For some pretty good reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.html
You and I both know that they should have been prosecuted AND Bush and Cheney and the employees of Blackwater are war criminals and should have been handed over to the International Court. The whole war in Iraq was based on a lie. American Imperialism is what angers the rest of the world and regardless of their positions, these people should have been prosecuted. As much as anything allowing these people to go unpunished gives terrorists more recruits to attack western countries. As much as those responsible for the Japan A-bomb drop should have been prosecuted- which the scientists who developed the bomb did not want dropped and as we later found out, Japan would have surrendered anyway and the bomb drops were just a show off.

BTW Princeton did an extensive study that proved that the US is an oligarchy and the influence of companies in government and government in the justice system were some of the reasons why. Also, Slate Staff themselves had scalding posts about the article.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

George Sd Dec 9, 2014

“poses a real risk to democratic governance”

I thought the real risk to democratic governance was when we passed laws via democratic processes which purport to outlaw certain classes of actions by our government employees, then government employees go ahead and do them anyway, and are never brought to account for those criminal acts.

FlagShareReply

Nick

Nick Dec 9, 2014

@George Sd

That’s old-fashioned of you. The new fashion is that if it is policy, you can break the law. And torture people to death.

FlagShareReply

october271986

october271986 MEMBERDec 10, 2014

@George Sd We can’t hold elites accountable. We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others.

expanded fracking,
Tried to limit fracking and was shut down.

did not get the patriot act repealed,
Under President Obama there has been some oversight added by the Executive Branch.

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

was not supportive of whistleblowers, etc.
This is true. This administration has been very diligent in tracking down leaks. However you must discriminate between leakers of government illicit or unethical behavior and actual cases of espionage which also seemed to increase during the last decade.
Some of these people actually went to the authorities first and warned them about abuses of authority that were happening, however they were ignored so they had no choice but to go public.

The last really good president this country had was many decades ago and that was JFK. None of these people you mentioned can be put in that category.
I think history is going to treat President Obama pretty well overall.
He’s okay, middle of the road in my opinion, of course. Better than what came before, but not as good as we hoped.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58176119

Yes, there’s probably some agreement that our evolutionary history has inclined us to certain behavioural traits that tend to emerge when there are certain kinds of environmental pressure. The term “hard-wired” seems too black & white to me, though. Humans might have a whole host of genetically-driven inclinations and unconscious responses but they aren’t as simple as a little computer program that parses a simple if-then structure to always come up with the same answer as to how to behave, in every human.

Human nature (to give the short hand term for a vast array of genetically and memetically-driven responses to stimuli) is hugely variegated. It has commonalities across all humans and, to a much lesser extent, across all their cultures. But an individual’s human nature can respond is vastly different ways to that of another individual when in identical circumstances. The enormous range of human genetic flavours, belief systems and social norms is what gives rise to the human need for politics; and to various co-operations & conflicts that have no cause other than an ideological cause.

So, in some contentious cultural and environmental circumstances one group of humans might behave in a very aggressive and “tribal” fashion whilst another might seek diplomacy and co-operation. The emergence of civilisation is in part the trend for the co-operative inclinations and responses to overcome the more primitive and aggressive responses.

But even in the most civilised societies and cultures, there will be individuals who have a genetic make up, or a personal nurture-history, of a kind that will readily latch on to one mode or the other. Those with a certain kind of brain chemistry and population-mix of the various gut bacteria will tend to the aggressive no matter what the circumstances. The same is true for those who have suffered such an abusive nurture that they are indeed programmed for “fight” in all circumstances.

If one has that aggression-inducing personal chemistry along with a history bereft of love, one might appear as a “hard-wired” nutter.

Yes, there’s probably some agreement that our evolutionary history has inclined us to certain behavioural traits that tend to emerge when there are certain kinds of environmental pressure. The term “hard-wired” seems too black & white to me, though. Humans might have a whole host of genetically-driven inclinations and unconscious responses but they aren’t as simple as a little computer program that parses a simple if-then structure to always come up with the same answer as to how to behave, in every human.

Human nature (to give the short hand term for a vast array of genetically and memetically-driven responses to stimuli) is hugely variegated. It has commonalities across all humans and, to a much lesser extent, across all their cultures. But an individual’s human nature can respond is vastly different ways to that of another individual when in identical circumstances. The enormous range of human genetic flavours, belief systems and social norms is what gives rise to the human need for politics; and to various co-operations & conflicts that have no cause other than an ideological cause.

So, in some contentious cultural and environmental circumstances one group of humans might behave in a very aggressive and “tribal” fashion whilst another might seek diplomacy and co-operation. The emergence of civilisation is in part the trend for the co-operative inclinations and responses to overcome the more primitive and aggressive responses.

But even in the most civilised societies and cultures, there will be individuals who have a genetic make up, or a personal nurture-history, of a kind that will readily latch on to one mode or the other. Those with a certain kind of brain chemistry and population-mix of the various gut bacteria will tend to the aggressive no matter what the circumstances. The same is true for those who have suffered such an abusive nurture that they are indeed programmed for “fight” in all circumstances.

If one has that aggression-inducing personal chemistry along with a history bereft of love, one might appear as a “hard-wired” nutter.

Yes, there’s probably some agreement that our evolutionary history has inclined us to certain behavioural traits that tend to emerge when there are certain kinds of environmental pressure. The term “hard-wired” seems too black & white to me, though. Humans might have a whole host of genetically-driven inclinations and unconscious responses but they aren’t as simple as a little computer program that parses a simple if-then structure to always come up with the same answer as to how to behave, in every human.

Human nature (to give the short hand term for a vast array of genetically and memetically-driven responses to stimuli) is hugely variegated. It has commonalities across all humans and, to a much lesser extent, across all their cultures. But an individual’s human nature can respond is vastly different ways to that of another individual when in identical circumstances. The enormous range of human genetic flavours, belief systems and social norms is what gives rise to the human need for politics; and to various co-operations & conflicts that have no cause other than an ideological cause.

So, in some contentious cultural and environmental circumstances one group of humans might behave in a very aggressive and “tribal” fashion whilst another might seek diplomacy and co-operation. The emergence of civilisation is in part the trend for the co-operative inclinations and responses to overcome the more primitive and aggressive responses.

But even in the most civilised societies and cultures, there will be individuals who have a genetic make up, or a personal nurture-history, of a kind that will readily latch on to one mode or the other. Those with a certain kind of brain chemistry and population-mix of the various gut bacteria will tend to the aggressive no matter what the circumstances. The same is true for those who have suffered such an abusive nurture that they are indeed programmed for “fight” in all circumstances.

If one has that aggression-inducing personal chemistry along with a history bereft of love, one might appear as a “hard-wired” nutter.

Yes, there’s probably some agreement that our evolutionary history has inclined us to certain behavioural traits that tend to emerge when there are certain kinds of environmental pressure. The term “hard-wired” seems too black & white to me, though. Humans might have a whole host of genetically-driven inclinations and unconscious responses but they aren’t as simple as a little computer program that parses a simple if-then structure to always come up with the same answer as to how to behave, in every human.

Human nature (to give the short hand term for a vast array of genetically and memetically-driven responses to stimuli) is hugely variegated. It has commonalities across all humans and, to a much lesser extent, across all their cultures. But an individual’s human nature can respond is vastly different ways to that of another individual when in identical circumstances. The enormous range of human genetic flavours, belief systems and social norms is what gives rise to the human need for politics; and to various co-operations & conflicts that have no cause other than an ideological cause.

So, in some contentious cultural and environmental circumstances one group of humans might behave in a very aggressive and “tribal” fashion whilst another might seek diplomacy and co-operation. The emergence of civilisation is in part the trend for the co-operative inclinations and responses to overcome the more primitive and aggressive responses.

But even in the most civilised societies and cultures, there will be individuals who have a genetic make up, or a personal nurture-history, of a kind that will readily latch on to one mode or the other. Those with a certain kind of brain chemistry and population-mix of the various gut bacteria will tend to the aggressive no matter what the circumstances. The same is true for those who have suffered such an abusive nurture that they are indeed programmed for “fight” in all circumstances.

If one has that aggression-inducing personal chemistry along with a history bereft of love, one might appear as a “hard-wired” nutter.

Crazy like a Fox (or like Fox News)- the Orange Republic has gone bananas!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172440

 

The Orange Republic has indeed gone bananas!

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the Clinton-Trump plan all along. Like I said before, besides their suspicious friendship and reports of Clinton encouraging Trump to run in a phone call prior to the primary process, no one this rich could possibly be that dumb to say things like that.

 

http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-pulled-white-house-strings-kill-telecom-treaty

Google Pulled White House Strings to Kill Telecom Treaty
Google executives and nonprofits they funded dominated US delegation. Company maneuvered behind scenes with White House to derail State Department diplomatic effort
issue1-main.jpg
Google strategized with White House to quash a State Department compromise
Google strategized with White House to quash a State Department compromise
Newly-uncovered emails show Google used its deep connections in the Obama White House to mold U.S. policy at a United Nations-sponsored international telecommunications conference with big implications for its bottom line.

Before, during, and after the event, Google officials met and spoke with White House officials to coordinate their strategies for obtaining the company’s policy goals, the emails show. Behind the scenes, the company even pressed its contacts at the White House to quash an effort by the U.S. State Department to forge a compromise deal with other nations in defiance of the company’s wishes.

Google chairman Eric Schmidt — who had played an important role in President Obama’s re-election campaign the previous month — even called the office of Hillary Clinton, then-secretary of state, to lobby her on the issue.

On December 11, 2012, Google’s head of international relations, Ross LaJeunesse, emailed the White House internet advisor, David Edelman to express concern about the State Department and WCIT-12 delegate Ambassador Terry Kramer reaching a deal:

ROSS LAJEUNESSE EMAIL, DECEMBER 11, 2012 (p. 134)
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View entire document with DocumentCloud
Edelman replied the next afternoon on December 12 2012: “I understand that Eric [Schmidt] personally called Secretary Clinton’s office, which was an impressive show of force.”

An hour later, LaJeunesse responded, “hey, i don’t mess around…”

The emails offer a rare glimpse inside a White House being heavily lobbied by a company with which it has unusually close relations. They offer more evidence of the cozy relationship between Google and the Obama White House, showing officials working in tandem with Google employees to secure Google’s preferred policy outcomes at the 2012 Dubai World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT-12 for short.

wcit12.jpg

WCIT-12 Dubai Conference
The emails also provide evidence that Google was coordinating a stealthy mechanism with the White House to channel funds to an internet governance body that would uphold its interests, while concealing its own involvement in the effort.

The international conference was convened by a UN agency responsible for international telecommunications issues, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to renegotiate the rules that govern information traffic across borders to make operators able to communicate. Prior to WCIT-12, the regulations hadn’t been negotiated since 1988, before most people had heard of the internet.

The rules may seem arcane, but they had the potential to upend Google’s business model. One proposal would have expanded the scope of the rules to include internet companies like Google. Another would have made them pay other nations’ telecom operators for sending data through their networks.

While it’s usual practice for the person placing an international telephone call to pay, that hasn’t been the case for sending data across international borders. The European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) and telecom service providers from developing nations argued for a “sender pays” model for data transmissions, saying U.S. internet companies like Google were “free riding” on the telecom infrastructure of developing countries. Western internet companies like Google should therefore compensate those companies for providing the infrastructure that allowed them to reach their millions of users, they argued.

Success of the “sender pays” effort could have had serious consequences for Google’s advertising-supported business model, potentially requiring the company to pay international carriers for carrying information from YouTube and other data-heavy sites. Under the proposal, “Google — amongst other big senders — would be unable to continue using freely the worldwide infrastructure network for which it did not spend a penny,” one observer wrote at the time.

Google mounted a furious public campaign to defeat the proposals, saying the proposals would spell the end of the open internet and alleging that autocratic governments like Russia and China were using a closed-door process to censor users in their countries. The ITU criticized the Google campaign as misguided, while some authors said it merely masked the company’s business interests.

Google “has been a ringleader of a conspiracy theory that the ITU intends to use the ITR process to take over governance of the Internet and cater to nation states that want to censor and filter content,” wrote Jody Westby, an adjunct professor at Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Computer Science. Westby accused the company of “hyperbole” for suggesting that the “future of the Internet” was in jeopardy and suggested that the real reason for Google’s “self-serving” tactics was financial.

The conference ultimately failed to achieve consensus because of divisions over the potential inclusion of network security and other internet-related issues in the rules. Although 89 ITU member states signed the final version of the treaty, 55 declined to do so including the U.S. and many of its European allies. Notably, the final version of the treaty contained no added text explicitly concerning the internet, internet governance, or information security.

Google entered the conference with some unusual advantages. The U.S. delegation included four Google executives (Aparna Sridhar, Patrick Ryan, Sarah Falvey, and Ross LaJeunesse), more than any other U.S. company represented, including in the telecommunications industry.

It had other, undeclared allies on the delegation as well. Every civil society or nonprofit delegate to the conference received financial support from Google according to an analysis of the company’s U.S. Public Policy Transparency web page and other publicly available sources.

Delegates representing the civil society and non-profit sector included Ed Black with the Computer Communications and Industry Association (CCIA), Deborah Brown with AccessNow.org, Eli Dourado with George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, Harold Feld and Rashmi Rangnath with Public Knowledge and Avri Doria with dotGay. Doria is also a researcher and policy advisor to the Association for Progressive Communications, which has received Google financial support in the past according to APC’s “funding” page.

Early Lobbying at Department of Commerce
Google started lobbying early. The emails reveal Google executives met with U.S. officials about WCIT-12 more than a year before the conference. On November 2, 2011, Jane Coffin, an ITU negotiator from the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), emailed her colleagues: “Please let me know ASAP tomorrow (no later than Noon) – if you can make a meeting with Google’s WCIT team on Nov 11 at 10 am.”

A month later, on December 15, emails show Coffin scheduled another meeting with Google’s WCIT-12 team and Google lobbyists Johanna Shelton and Rick Whitt. Coffin’s Commerce Department colleague noted in a reply that Vint Cerf, the Google executive leading the charge against the ITU effort, was meeting with the Secretary of Commerce.

“Just an FYI – close hold. Vint Cerf is meeting with the Secretary either on Monday or Tuesday to discuss SOPA/Protect IP among other things.”

The U.S. State Department didn’t formally constitute its official WCIT-12 delegation until nine months later in mid-September of 2012.

Google’s White House Lobbying
On November 27, 2012, a week before the official commencement of WCIT-12, White House internet advisor Edelman forwarded a Forbes story to Google lobbyist Shelton on newly-leaked ITU documents. The story reported that the conference was already in disarray and noted senior ITU officials believed that a “well-financed and well-organized campaign originating in the USA” was attempting to “discredit the ITU and WCIT.”

google wcit page.jpg

Google created a “Take Action” website to mobilize against WCIT-12
The story also reported that Google had launched its own website urging users to take direct action against the conference. “Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech — or even allow them to cut off Internet access,” the Google site stated.

Edelman wrote: “Johanna, Since Google is mentioned by name several times here, I thought you should see if you haven’t already. It may be worth examining the ITU documents in the original as well, if they’re still up.”

Notably, the site that published the leaked documents, WCITLeaks.org, was co-founded in June of 2012 by two delegates from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, which was among a handful of conservative groups to receive “substantial funding” from Google in 2012 for the first time ever.

A day after Edelman forwarded the Forbes story to Shelton, Edelman met on November 28, 2012 with LaJeunesse and Google lobbyist George Ivanov at Teaism, a restaurant in Washington, D.C.’s Dupont Circle neighborhood.

Edelman’s email noted, “I’ll be there on Friday. I return from Dubai on Wednesday of next week; I’d like to touch base then, if you’re back to compare notes on what we’re hearing from our respective WCIT teams.”

Two days later on November 30, 2012, Edelman emailed LaJeunesse: “Great seeing you today. My contact details are below. I’ll have the BB [Blackberry] with me on the ground. Please don’t hesitate to reach out, and see you in Dubai.”

Several emails sent from LaJeunesse suggest that Google’s role went beyond coordinating with the delegation to acting as its ringleader. He led an intense effort to push delegates to lobby against the ETNO “sender-pays” proposal and proposals to expand the ITU’s mandate to include regulatory treatment of internet companies like Google. On December 5, 2012, LaJeunesse emailed members of the U.S. WCIT delegation:

“Bob as the liaison with India – could you please follow up with the India delegation… k-y, as the liaison with korea – could you please do the same? In particular, there seems to be a lack of alignment on ETNO and security… I wonder if we could get them to be vocal on those areas where we’re in agreement – ROA/OA.”

ROA/OA” was shorthand for the treaty negotiations to expand ITU’s oversight from “recognized operating agencies” (telecom companies) to “operating agencies” (internet companies like Google.)

On December 14, 2012, the WCIT-12 treaty collapsed after the U.S. refused to sign-on to the pact, citing its inability to resolve the impasse relating to internet issues. Canada and several European countries also refused to sign-on to the agreement. Even so, the U.S. successfully removed language requiring internet companies like Google to compensate foreign telecommunications companies for carrying data traffic on their networks, and the final treaty language added no provisions on internet governance.

Epilogue: WCIT Post Mortem and secret funding for the Internet Governance Forum
Still, Google wasn’t finished. In the aftermath of the conference, its executives and lobbyists renewed contacts with the White House and strategized on how to respond to a perceived threat from the State Department.

On December 17, 2012, three days after the collapse of WCIT-12, LaJeunesse emailed Edelman again to coordinate messaging around the post-WCIT fallout: “…do you have thoughts now on the best way of Google engaging? I’ve got an office full of revved-up folks in DC who are looking to engage. Messages, etc.”

Edelman replied, “what do you mean by engaging. You mean a larger hotwash of WCIT?

Three days later, on December 20, 2012, the U.S. WCIT delegation attended a White House reception, visitors logs show. LaJeunesse and Edelman met privately an hour before the reception.

As the WCIT fallout of December 2012 subsided, LaJeunesse began looking ahead to the post-WCIT challenges the company would face. On February 11, 2013, at 1:49 pm LaJeunesse emailed Edelman, “…I’m hoping to talk to you later this week if you have ten minutes? Increasingly alarmed at state dept’s approach to the post-WCIT challenges we’re facing.”

LaJeunesse expressed his concerns in a separate email to Edelman that the company was worried it would spend 2013 battling the ITU instead of focusing on access in the developing world. He forwarded a letter from the U.S. Council for International Business to State Department officials seeking increased funding for IGF.

chris painter.jpg

State Department WCIT delegate Chris Painter called to White House immediately after Google expressed its concerns with State’s WCIT “approach”
According to White House visitor logs, at 4pm Edelman met with Chris Painter, the State Department’s WCIT delegate for cyber issues. The next day, February 12, 2013, Edelman replied to LaJeunesse, “Got it, thanks. I made sure the appropriate folks were informed on all sides… I flagged for State seniors.”

One Google proposal shared with White House officials, and ultimately implemented, was an alternative funding mechanism for the Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder group hosted by the UN that has no members but draws governments, big business, NGOs and academics for policy discussions related to Internet governance.

While the IGF itself lacks any mandate to make decisions or take action regarding internet governance, it is a key and influential discussion platform on internet governance issues. In this regard, Google’s embrace of IGF’s multi-stakeholder model can be viewed as an effective lobbying platform to stave off government regulation that would have an impact on Google’s business model.

Patrick Ryan, a top Google public policy executive who was part of the U.S. delegation, expressed concern in emails to Edelman and State Department officials in February 2013 that the IGF’s lack of funding would result in the group being folded into an ITU forum where the multi-stakeholder commitment to Internet governance Google favored was less certain.

However, Google apparently wanted to keep its fingerprints off of the operation. Ryan, who served as a member of the IGF’s Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in 2014 and 2015, proposed coordinating the funding through an International Chamber of Commerce group known as Business Action to Support the Information Society (ICC BASIS), so that financial support for IGF wouldn’t be too closely associated with Google.

Ryan wrote: “We believe that working with ICC BASIS is key, we believe, so that this doesn’t become a ‘Google’ deal and so that it has broader support from the business community.”

The new arrangement raised suspicions from some in the international community. Robert Shlegel, a member of the Russian Internet Governance Forum and a member of parliament for Putin’s United Russia Party, criticized the new IGF funding arrangement on May 22, 2013, noting that the fund was “over affiliated with the US government.”

Despite having emailed the White House and U.S. State Department about the arrangement, Google’s Ryan pleaded ignorance of any U.S. government connections in his reply.

The emails were released by the Google Transparency Project as part of its forthcoming archive of communications between Google and government officials. Some of the emails between Edelman and Google officials were previously released to another researcher, John Greenewald, but have not previously been reported on.

http://googletransparencyproject.org/

 

http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-pulled-white-house-strings-kill-telecom-treaty

Google Pulled White House Strings to Kill Telecom Treaty
Google executives and nonprofits they funded dominated US delegation. Company maneuvered behind scenes with White House to derail State Department diplomatic effort
issue1-main.jpg
Google strategized with White House to quash a State Department compromise
Google strategized with White House to quash a State Department compromise
Newly-uncovered emails show Google used its deep connections in the Obama White House to mold U.S. policy at a United Nations-sponsored international telecommunications conference with big implications for its bottom line.

Before, during, and after the event, Google officials met and spoke with White House officials to coordinate their strategies for obtaining the company’s policy goals, the emails show. Behind the scenes, the company even pressed its contacts at the White House to quash an effort by the U.S. State Department to forge a compromise deal with other nations in defiance of the company’s wishes.

Google chairman Eric Schmidt — who had played an important role in President Obama’s re-election campaign the previous month — even called the office of Hillary Clinton, then-secretary of state, to lobby her on the issue.

On December 11, 2012, Google’s head of international relations, Ross LaJeunesse, emailed the White House internet advisor, David Edelman to express concern about the State Department and WCIT-12 delegate Ambassador Terry Kramer reaching a deal:

ROSS LAJEUNESSE EMAIL, DECEMBER 11, 2012 (p. 134)
Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
View entire document with DocumentCloud
Edelman replied the next afternoon on December 12 2012: “I understand that Eric [Schmidt] personally called Secretary Clinton’s office, which was an impressive show of force.”

An hour later, LaJeunesse responded, “hey, i don’t mess around…”

The emails offer a rare glimpse inside a White House being heavily lobbied by a company with which it has unusually close relations. They offer more evidence of the cozy relationship between Google and the Obama White House, showing officials working in tandem with Google employees to secure Google’s preferred policy outcomes at the 2012 Dubai World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT-12 for short.

wcit12.jpg

WCIT-12 Dubai Conference
The emails also provide evidence that Google was coordinating a stealthy mechanism with the White House to channel funds to an internet governance body that would uphold its interests, while concealing its own involvement in the effort.

The international conference was convened by a UN agency responsible for international telecommunications issues, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to renegotiate the rules that govern information traffic across borders to make operators able to communicate. Prior to WCIT-12, the regulations hadn’t been negotiated since 1988, before most people had heard of the internet.

The rules may seem arcane, but they had the potential to upend Google’s business model. One proposal would have expanded the scope of the rules to include internet companies like Google. Another would have made them pay other nations’ telecom operators for sending data through their networks.

While it’s usual practice for the person placing an international telephone call to pay, that hasn’t been the case for sending data across international borders. The European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) and telecom service providers from developing nations argued for a “sender pays” model for data transmissions, saying U.S. internet companies like Google were “free riding” on the telecom infrastructure of developing countries. Western internet companies like Google should therefore compensate those companies for providing the infrastructure that allowed them to reach their millions of users, they argued.

Success of the “sender pays” effort could have had serious consequences for Google’s advertising-supported business model, potentially requiring the company to pay international carriers for carrying information from YouTube and other data-heavy sites. Under the proposal, “Google — amongst other big senders — would be unable to continue using freely the worldwide infrastructure network for which it did not spend a penny,” one observer wrote at the time.

Google mounted a furious public campaign to defeat the proposals, saying the proposals would spell the end of the open internet and alleging that autocratic governments like Russia and China were using a closed-door process to censor users in their countries. The ITU criticized the Google campaign as misguided, while some authors said it merely masked the company’s business interests.

Google “has been a ringleader of a conspiracy theory that the ITU intends to use the ITR process to take over governance of the Internet and cater to nation states that want to censor and filter content,” wrote Jody Westby, an adjunct professor at Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Computer Science. Westby accused the company of “hyperbole” for suggesting that the “future of the Internet” was in jeopardy and suggested that the real reason for Google’s “self-serving” tactics was financial.

The conference ultimately failed to achieve consensus because of divisions over the potential inclusion of network security and other internet-related issues in the rules. Although 89 ITU member states signed the final version of the treaty, 55 declined to do so including the U.S. and many of its European allies. Notably, the final version of the treaty contained no added text explicitly concerning the internet, internet governance, or information security.

Google entered the conference with some unusual advantages. The U.S. delegation included four Google executives (Aparna Sridhar, Patrick Ryan, Sarah Falvey, and Ross LaJeunesse), more than any other U.S. company represented, including in the telecommunications industry.

It had other, undeclared allies on the delegation as well. Every civil society or nonprofit delegate to the conference received financial support from Google according to an analysis of the company’s U.S. Public Policy Transparency web page and other publicly available sources.

Delegates representing the civil society and non-profit sector included Ed Black with the Computer Communications and Industry Association (CCIA), Deborah Brown with AccessNow.org, Eli Dourado with George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, Harold Feld and Rashmi Rangnath with Public Knowledge and Avri Doria with dotGay. Doria is also a researcher and policy advisor to the Association for Progressive Communications, which has received Google financial support in the past according to APC’s “funding” page.

Early Lobbying at Department of Commerce
Google started lobbying early. The emails reveal Google executives met with U.S. officials about WCIT-12 more than a year before the conference. On November 2, 2011, Jane Coffin, an ITU negotiator from the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), emailed her colleagues: “Please let me know ASAP tomorrow (no later than Noon) – if you can make a meeting with Google’s WCIT team on Nov 11 at 10 am.”

A month later, on December 15, emails show Coffin scheduled another meeting with Google’s WCIT-12 team and Google lobbyists Johanna Shelton and Rick Whitt. Coffin’s Commerce Department colleague noted in a reply that Vint Cerf, the Google executive leading the charge against the ITU effort, was meeting with the Secretary of Commerce.

“Just an FYI – close hold. Vint Cerf is meeting with the Secretary either on Monday or Tuesday to discuss SOPA/Protect IP among other things.”

The U.S. State Department didn’t formally constitute its official WCIT-12 delegation until nine months later in mid-September of 2012.

Google’s White House Lobbying
On November 27, 2012, a week before the official commencement of WCIT-12, White House internet advisor Edelman forwarded a Forbes story to Google lobbyist Shelton on newly-leaked ITU documents. The story reported that the conference was already in disarray and noted senior ITU officials believed that a “well-financed and well-organized campaign originating in the USA” was attempting to “discredit the ITU and WCIT.”

google wcit page.jpg

Google created a “Take Action” website to mobilize against WCIT-12
The story also reported that Google had launched its own website urging users to take direct action against the conference. “Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech — or even allow them to cut off Internet access,” the Google site stated.

Edelman wrote: “Johanna, Since Google is mentioned by name several times here, I thought you should see if you haven’t already. It may be worth examining the ITU documents in the original as well, if they’re still up.”

Notably, the site that published the leaked documents, WCITLeaks.org, was co-founded in June of 2012 by two delegates from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, which was among a handful of conservative groups to receive “substantial funding” from Google in 2012 for the first time ever.

A day after Edelman forwarded the Forbes story to Shelton, Edelman met on November 28, 2012 with LaJeunesse and Google lobbyist George Ivanov at Teaism, a restaurant in Washington, D.C.’s Dupont Circle neighborhood.

Edelman’s email noted, “I’ll be there on Friday. I return from Dubai on Wednesday of next week; I’d like to touch base then, if you’re back to compare notes on what we’re hearing from our respective WCIT teams.”

Two days later on November 30, 2012, Edelman emailed LaJeunesse: “Great seeing you today. My contact details are below. I’ll have the BB [Blackberry] with me on the ground. Please don’t hesitate to reach out, and see you in Dubai.”

Several emails sent from LaJeunesse suggest that Google’s role went beyond coordinating with the delegation to acting as its ringleader. He led an intense effort to push delegates to lobby against the ETNO “sender-pays” proposal and proposals to expand the ITU’s mandate to include regulatory treatment of internet companies like Google. On December 5, 2012, LaJeunesse emailed members of the U.S. WCIT delegation:

“Bob as the liaison with India – could you please follow up with the India delegation… k-y, as the liaison with korea – could you please do the same? In particular, there seems to be a lack of alignment on ETNO and security… I wonder if we could get them to be vocal on those areas where we’re in agreement – ROA/OA.”

ROA/OA” was shorthand for the treaty negotiations to expand ITU’s oversight from “recognized operating agencies” (telecom companies) to “operating agencies” (internet companies like Google.)

On December 14, 2012, the WCIT-12 treaty collapsed after the U.S. refused to sign-on to the pact, citing its inability to resolve the impasse relating to internet issues. Canada and several European countries also refused to sign-on to the agreement. Even so, the U.S. successfully removed language requiring internet companies like Google to compensate foreign telecommunications companies for carrying data traffic on their networks, and the final treaty language added no provisions on internet governance.

Epilogue: WCIT Post Mortem and secret funding for the Internet Governance Forum
Still, Google wasn’t finished. In the aftermath of the conference, its executives and lobbyists renewed contacts with the White House and strategized on how to respond to a perceived threat from the State Department.

On December 17, 2012, three days after the collapse of WCIT-12, LaJeunesse emailed Edelman again to coordinate messaging around the post-WCIT fallout: “…do you have thoughts now on the best way of Google engaging? I’ve got an office full of revved-up folks in DC who are looking to engage. Messages, etc.”

Edelman replied, “what do you mean by engaging. You mean a larger hotwash of WCIT?

Three days later, on December 20, 2012, the U.S. WCIT delegation attended a White House reception, visitors logs show. LaJeunesse and Edelman met privately an hour before the reception.

As the WCIT fallout of December 2012 subsided, LaJeunesse began looking ahead to the post-WCIT challenges the company would face. On February 11, 2013, at 1:49 pm LaJeunesse emailed Edelman, “…I’m hoping to talk to you later this week if you have ten minutes? Increasingly alarmed at state dept’s approach to the post-WCIT challenges we’re facing.”

LaJeunesse expressed his concerns in a separate email to Edelman that the company was worried it would spend 2013 battling the ITU instead of focusing on access in the developing world. He forwarded a letter from the U.S. Council for International Business to State Department officials seeking increased funding for IGF.

chris painter.jpg

State Department WCIT delegate Chris Painter called to White House immediately after Google expressed its concerns with State’s WCIT “approach”
According to White House visitor logs, at 4pm Edelman met with Chris Painter, the State Department’s WCIT delegate for cyber issues. The next day, February 12, 2013, Edelman replied to LaJeunesse, “Got it, thanks. I made sure the appropriate folks were informed on all sides… I flagged for State seniors.”

One Google proposal shared with White House officials, and ultimately implemented, was an alternative funding mechanism for the Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder group hosted by the UN that has no members but draws governments, big business, NGOs and academics for policy discussions related to Internet governance.

While the IGF itself lacks any mandate to make decisions or take action regarding internet governance, it is a key and influential discussion platform on internet governance issues. In this regard, Google’s embrace of IGF’s multi-stakeholder model can be viewed as an effective lobbying platform to stave off government regulation that would have an impact on Google’s business model.

Patrick Ryan, a top Google public policy executive who was part of the U.S. delegation, expressed concern in emails to Edelman and State Department officials in February 2013 that the IGF’s lack of funding would result in the group being folded into an ITU forum where the multi-stakeholder commitment to Internet governance Google favored was less certain.

However, Google apparently wanted to keep its fingerprints off of the operation. Ryan, who served as a member of the IGF’s Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in 2014 and 2015, proposed coordinating the funding through an International Chamber of Commerce group known as Business Action to Support the Information Society (ICC BASIS), so that financial support for IGF wouldn’t be too closely associated with Google.

Ryan wrote: “We believe that working with ICC BASIS is key, we believe, so that this doesn’t become a ‘Google’ deal and so that it has broader support from the business community.”

The new arrangement raised suspicions from some in the international community. Robert Shlegel, a member of the Russian Internet Governance Forum and a member of parliament for Putin’s United Russia Party, criticized the new IGF funding arrangement on May 22, 2013, noting that the fund was “over affiliated with the US government.”

Despite having emailed the White House and U.S. State Department about the arrangement, Google’s Ryan pleaded ignorance of any U.S. government connections in his reply.

The emails were released by the Google Transparency Project as part of its forthcoming archive of communications between Google and government officials. Some of the emails between Edelman and Google officials were previously released to another researcher, John Greenewald, but have not previously been reported on.

http://googletransparencyproject.org/

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58162616

In fact, the Spanish and Portugese were the worst offenders in the African slave trade. The vast majority of Africans taken into slavery in the 1700’s-1800’s, around four million, went to south America to work the gold and silver mines. Most were dead within a year.

And, so far, they seem to have been given a free ride on that act of genocide.

The horrors visited by the Japanese upon those they conquered was swept under the carpet, as the US needed Japan to join in the cold war. Not to mention their WMD’s they tested on the Chinese – we needed their prowess in biological warfare, too, so that was hushed up.

However, one of the few positive outcomes of WW2 was setting a precedent that oppressing people simply because of who they are can lead to defeat and judgment at the end of a rope.

Racism today is more the result of cherry picked hype and media/activist benefit than anything. The majority of the citizens of the US put racism aside and elected a black president in 2008, and he proved that a black president can be just as bad as a white president.

Yet, these are portrayed as ‘racist’ times. A living manifestation of the old saying: if you look for trouble, you find it.

We have become a victim of our own unwillingness to think for ourselves.

 

Warhawks on both sides

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171778
The main message to take home is how detrimental Colonization has been in world history- whether it was the Mongols, Ancient Rome, Britain in Scotland and Ireland, Britain in India and the Middle East, France in Algeria, the Opium trade with China, etc. When one group of people claim “superiority” over another and try to take over their land, one can only expect violence- whether in the form of war or “terrorism.” It continues to this day.

What happened to make some sects of Islam so violent was what was done to them by the Mongols AND the British. If you read about Islam during the Middle Ages it was FAR more progressive and made many scientific, medical and mathematical discoveries. As a matter of fact, it was Christianity back then which was backwards.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

lmao awww did you get little feelings hurt? Cant handle the revelations of corruption in the Democratic Party can we, little boy? Poor kid……

One day you’ll be smart enough to realize that both of your political parties are corrupt and neither should be supported. The rest of the world has, so it’s time for you to catch up.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what’s really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would “jail” Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting “released.” She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

There is no Russian “propaganda” to spread. Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I’d compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump’s tax returns that indicate the reason he won’t release them is because it shows a link between Trump’s real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what’s really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would “jail” Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting “released.” She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171837

There is no Russian “propaganda” to spread. No one outside of Russia finds that kind of authoritarianism acceptable (unless they’re an authoritarian themselves.) Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I’d compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump’s tax returns that indicate the reason he won’t release them is because it shows a link between Trump’s real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what’s really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would “jail” Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting “released.” She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171861

I’m now a Green Party supporter, although I’m beginning to realize that George Washington was right for his disdain of ANY political party.

The questions concerning Clinton’s warhawkism are real- and dispeccable Leon Panetta lies at the core of it with his “30 years war” propaganda and his trying to cover up torture at Gitmo and the shouting down of “No More War” chanters with faux-“patriotic” “USA” chants at the convention.

The funny thing is the DNC honored Panetta and yet Panetta spoke out against Obama in his book. If you want to find out why terrorism happens, it is a direct result of what America does overseas- and Panetta is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Thanks for sharing, also emptywheel was commenting on this guy.

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him.”

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

Mike Morell’s Performance of “Intelligence”

The Dianne Feinstein-Jose Rodriguez Grudge Match

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

EX-CIA DIRECTOR WHO ENDORSED CLINTON CALLS FOR KILLING IRANIANS AND RUSSIANS IN SYRIA
Murtaza Hussain
Aug. 9 2016, 4:49 p.m.
FORMER ACTING CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview Monday that U.S. policy in Syria should be to make Iran and Russia “pay a price” by arming local groups and instructing them to kill Iranian and Russian personnel in the country.

Morell was appearing on the Charlie Rose show on PBS in the wake of his publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton on the New York Times opinion pages.

Clinton has expressed support for increased military intervention in Syria against Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government. Iran and Russia are backing Assad.

“What they need is to have the Russians and Iranians pay a little price,” Morell said. “When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons to the Shia militia, who were killing American soldiers, right? The Iranians were making us pay a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price.”

Morell said the killing of Russians and Iranians should be undertaken “covertly, so you don’t tell the world about it, you don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say ‘we did this.’ But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”

Morell also proposed that U.S. forces begin bombing Syrian government installations, including government offices, aircraft and presidential guard positions. The former acting CIA director said that he wanted to “scare Assad.” Morell clarified that he wasn’t actually calling for Assad’s assassination.

He compared his proposal to American support for groups that targeted Russian forces in Afghanistan during the 1980’s — efforts that later helped incubate al Qaeda. He seemed unconcerned about how other parties might respond to such actions, beyond speculating that they might provide leverage for future negotiations.

If put into effect, Morell’s plans would entail a massive escalation of American covert military involvement in Syria that would bring the United States much closer to direct confrontation with Russia and Iran.

Morell’s endorsement of Clinton was quickly seen as a sign that he was interested in a role in a possible Clinton administration. He wrote that Clinton would be a “highly qualified commander in chief” and a “strong proponent of a more aggressive approach” to the conflict in Syria.

Morell told Rose that he had not discussed his proposal to kill Russian and Iranian personnel in Syria with Clinton, though he believed she was supportive of efforts to gain “diplomatic leverage.”

After leaving the CIA in 2013, Morell authored a memoir entitled “The Great War of Our Time.” The book was widely criticized for defending detainee torture in the post-9/11 era. Morell was also a co-author of a “rebuttal” to the Senate Intelligence Committee torture report.

Last week, CBS announced that Morell had left his role as a network news analyst so that he could begin publicly supporting Clinton’s run. During his interview with Rose, Morell continued to heap praise on Clinton’s perspective on U.S. relations with Syria, Russia and Iran.

This weekend, Hillary Clinton touted Morell’s endorsement on her Twitter page:

In other circles, Morell’s op-ed generated criticism of his role in defending torture, and the Times‘s failure to identify his employment at a consulting firm with strong ties to Clinton:

Follow
Domenic Powell @_vectorist
I ran the CIA, defended torture, now work for a former Clinton aide, and will accordingly endorse Hillary Clinton http://gawker.com/i-ran-the-c-i-a-now-i-work-for-a-longtime-clinton-ally-1784871887
11:19 AM – 5 Aug 2016
Photo published for I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally’s Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary…
I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally’s Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary…
On Friday, the New York Times ran an op-ed penned by Michael Morell, a 33-year veteran of the Central Intelligence agency who served as its acting director and deputy director from 2010 to 2013….
gawker.com
3 3 Retweets 5 5 likes
The Charlie Rose interview led one blogger to further update the title of Morell’s op-ed:
Follow
Christoph Germann @newgreatgame
“I ran the CIA now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton and I want Hillary to kill lots of Russians and Iranians in Syria”:
9:47 PM – 8 Aug 2016
1,520 1,520 Retweets 838 838 likes
Top photo: Morell testifies on Capitol Hi

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has released its internal guidelines for how it decides to kill or capture alleged terrorists around the globe, three years after they came into effect. They provide a look at the drone war bureaucracy behind hundreds of strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere, a system President Obama will hand off to his successor.

The guidelines show the process is concentrated at the White House, specifically in the National Security Council. They also describe the process for approving so-called signature strikes, where the target of the strike is not a known “high value terrorist,” but rather some other “terrorist target,” which could be a group of people exhibiting suspect behavior, or a vehicle, building or other infrastructure.

Amid all these procedural details, however, the presidential policy guidance, or “playbook,” as it has been called, does not provide new insight into when, where, and under what authorities someone can be killed, or what kind of intelligence is necessary to make that decision.

Much of the document, which is dated May 22, 2013, echoes public statements by administration officials over the past several years and previously-released material. The general standards for killing terrorist targets away from active battlefields were made public that May, when the president gave a speech and issued an abbreviated version of the guidance, promising that the United States would only undertake lethal action against a terrorist if they posed a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons, and if capture was not feasible.

It took a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union to get the full 18-page version of the guidance declassified, with some redactions.

“This document doesn’t tell us anything new about the substantive standards that they use to determine if someone can be targeted,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU. “We’d hope that they’d fill out what they mean by ‘continuing’ and ‘imminent,’ or ‘feasible’ or ‘unfeasible.’”

In a statement, the ACLU also questioned how the document’s “relatively stringent standards can be reconciled with the accounts of eye witnesses, journalists, and human rights researches who have documented large numbers of bystander casualties” from drone strikes.

The People Who Approve “Direct Actions”

According to the guidance, each operating agency – the CIA or the Defense Department – prepares “operational plans for taking direct actions,” whether strikes or captures, in different situations. Those plans undergo a legal review by the agencies’ general counsels and a legal adviser to the National Security Council, and then are considered by a circle of advisers at the White House known as the Principals and Principals’ Deputies Committees, made up of the heads or deputy heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, as well as the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Counterterrorism Center.

The plans must include legal, tactical and policy rationale for undertaking the strike, what kind of “strike and surveillance assets” would be used, and how long the authority to take action would remain in place. Once the committee arrives at its decision on the plan, it is communicated to the president for his final approval.

The guidance indicates that the president does not have to sign off on individual names of high-value targets to be killed, unless there is disagreement within the National Security Council. If the individual is a U.S. person, the Justice Department needs to weigh in.

If an agency wants to nominate an individual to be killed, they make a profile of them based on intelligence reporting, which is reviewed by an interagency panel led by the White House counterterrorism adviser, currently Lisa Monaco. Again, the profile passes through lawyers at the agency and at the National Security Council before going to the Deputies Committee and ultimately the Principals Committee for a final decision.

Although the process indicates a high degree of control in the White House, generally speaking, the actual operation is still carried out under the command of the military or CIA.

A similar process is followed for approving plans for strikes against “terrorist targets other than high-value terrorists.” The section seems to address “signature strikes,” in which the United States has attacked people without knowing their identity. The examples given in the policy guidance include vehicles carrying improvised explosive devices, or “infrastructure, including explosives storage facilities.” For an actual strike, it appears from the guidance that the Principals Committee and the president get involved only when there is disagreement about the operation.

If the suspect is to be captured, a rare occurrence under Obama, the president also approves the plan. Among the various considerations going into a decision to capture someone, such as how and where they would be detained and interrogated, and if they could be tried in civilian court or military commission, one thing is spelled out clearly: “In no event will detainees be brought to the detention facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.”

The process laid out in the guidance is more detailed but does not differ substantially from the one described in a 2013 Defense Department Power Point presentation published by The Intercept last fall, although that document included additional information on how the military carried out its strikes in Yemen and Somalia at the time. For instance, the presentation included the detail that once a target was approved by the White House, the military had a 60-day window to pursue the operation.

“Associated Forces” and Other Limits

The newly-issued guidance does not specify how long authorities for given operations last, although it mentions that the case against individuals on the list for lethal strikes must be reviewed each year. It also notes that if “a capture option” becomes possible at any point, there should be an expedited reevaluation of the authority to kill them.

The Defense Department also released two heavily redacted documents describing its implementation of the policy guidance, along with a letter to the Senate from 2014, stating that the Pentagon considers the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and other groups fighting alongside them against U.S. forces in Afghanistan to be “associated forces” of Al Qaeda, along with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates in Yemen. Some portions of the list of associated forces and all the groups considered “affiliates” of Al Qaeda are blacked out.

Associated forces would fall under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which became law just a week after 9/11, and which the administration has used to justify 15 years of lethal operations in many countries. Yet the White House process, the Pentagon document notes, involves a “target-by-target analysis” of legal authorities, and groups not currently identified as associated forces could still be targeted if a new situation arose. The guidance also includes a large waiver for the president to disregard it in cases of “national self-defense,” “fleeting opportunities,” or even to authorize a strike against someone who posed a threat “to another country’s persons.”

The guidance does not apply to operations in “areas of active hostilities,” which the administration currently defines as Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. A White House spokesman, Ned Price, pushed back on reports that strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, along the border, are not covered by the guidance, but would not clarify whether in some instances strikes in the border region might fall into the administration’s definition of active hostilities.

The guidance is one more exhibit in the Obama administration’s institutionalization of counterterrorism strikes, by drones and other means, far from conventional battlefields. Last month, the White House released casualty figures for such strikes during Obama’s presidency, stating that as many as 2,600 people had been killed in 473 strikes in 7 years. The administration believed that between 64 and 116 of them were civilians – a number disputed by outside observers, who put the total number of civilians harmed between 200 and 1000.

Even as the frequency of drone strikes, especially by the CIA, has declined markedly in the last years of Obama’s presidency, the practice has not ended. The U.S. military hit a Taliban leader in a strike in Pakistan in May, also killing a taxi driver. Strikes in Yemen have been more frequent, and there were two massive attacks in Yemen and Somalia in March killed dozens of alleged fighters.

 

Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 2:25 a.m.
http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.
The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.
Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.
China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.
The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.
Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.
A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.
“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.
Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.
“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.
He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.
Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.
He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

↪ Reply
Nick Torrent ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 2:42 a.m.
So Pakistan is opposed to the drone strikes but is incapable of doing anything about it?

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ Nick Torrent
Aug. 9 2016, 2:45 a.m.
What do you suggest they do? Shoot down a US drone? How will the US retaliate?

Pakistan is like a battered wife when it comes to the US.

Recall, the CIA guy who murdered two Pakistanis in broad daylight? Pakistan was forced to let him go.

By the way all this was discussed by me in comments at https://theintercept.com/2016/07/18/would-turkey-be-justified-in-kidnapping-or-drone-killing-the-turkish-cleric-in-pennsylvania/

↪ Reply

Clark
Aug. 10 2016, 8:32 a.m.
“WE think the price is worth it” (emphasis added).

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

↪ Reply
Si1ver1ock
Aug. 10 2016, 6:51 a.m.
Plausible Deniability is dead. Stories originating from the United States government are no longer plausible.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

↪ Reply
raymond
Aug. 10 2016, 5:29 a.m.
Yeah !…this man is ready for any “asylum”…right now !!..with people like this one roaming free in the streets, the world is in Real Peril !!…

↪ Reply
Karma
Aug. 10 2016, 4:39 a.m.
Super Provacative! Guess it won’t be any surprise now if Russian & Iranian troops start dying ‘mysteriously’.

↪ Reply
Deschutes
Aug. 10 2016, 3:48 a.m.
Hey I have an idea: if Michael Morell is so eager to kill lots more Syrians, Russians and Iranians why doesn’t he dress his chickenshit ass up in a white T-shirt with a big U.S. flag on the front and backside, along with some stars and stripes shorts–then have the airforce airdrop his ass into ISIS controlled territory with a gun? Its time for Mikey boy to to stop bloviating and start workin’ you CIA bitch!

↪ Reply
barabbas ↪ Deschutes
Aug. 10 2016, 4:29 a.m.
yes sir. Real Americans everywhere feel the same way. We dont have leaders, we have a shitload of profiteering pirates wanting to sacifice Americans for the greed of their paymasters.

THAT MUST END.

↪ Reply
Fred Cowan
Aug. 10 2016, 3:39 a.m.
Hillary or Trump if WE the people do not step up and “check their fire” something Very bad may happen. Trump will inspire such resistance, Hillary will slide it past us and WE may end up in a bigger war than We bargained for.

↪ Reply
SignalDetected
Aug. 10 2016, 2:25 a.m.
If evolution made people look the way they behave, the creatures in Washington would have by now shark teeth coming out of their mount, eyes, ears and nose.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:02 a.m.
Ex-CIA spook who whitewashed Benghazi endorses Hillary https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/08/08/ex-cia-spook-who-whitewashed-benghazi-endorses-hillary/

The very same Michael Morell

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:06 a.m.
Here are other achievements of Michael Morell

https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/michael-morell/

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 11:43 p.m.
It would be good to find out what were Michael Morell’s CIA assignments around 9/11.

According to wikipedia:

Morell “also managed the staff that produced the Presidential Daily Briefings for President George W. Bush. Morell was Bush’s briefer during the September 11, 2001, attacks, and has been quoted as saying, “I would bet every dollar I have that it’s al Qaeda.” Later, Morell was a trusted asset to President Barack Obama in the Osama bin Laden raid on May 2, 2011.[1][2]””

↪ Reply
TimN
Aug. 9 2016, 11:38 p.m.
Wow, another dumb fuck about to be placed in a position where he will likely do real harm.

↪ Reply
photosymbiosis
Aug. 9 2016, 10:25 p.m.
This is like an ex-KGB head saying that Russia should arm Al Qaeda in Yemen to kill Saudis and Americans and Brits over the Yemen War.

And, in any case, the covert arming and financing of radical Islamic groups in Syria by the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and Turkey from late 2011 through 2015 is a well-established fact, even if the media refuses to report on it.

Morrell’s op-ed is probably just a PR effort aimed at covering up this fact; a detailed investigation of CIA training camps in Turkey and Jordan would likely reveal that most of their trained fighters defected to ISIS or Al Qaeda once they entered Iraq. Morell, after all, was working under Leon Panetta when the whole Libyan-Syrian debacle was initiated; he has a lot to cover up, as does Clinton.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ photosymbiosis
Aug. 9 2016, 11:21 p.m.
Yeah, looks like Mossad and the CIA are both very worried that their men who created ISIS and are part of ISIS might now get destroyed in Syria by the Russians.

↪ Reply
Orville ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:32 a.m.
One can hope the turnaround in the war will continue, so that IS, Al-Nusra, Al-Sham and their allies are defeated before Clinton gets voted in and decides to change sides in the War on Terror, like she did in Libya. The Russophobes are already pushing for a ceasefire (or intervention, like they did in Libya) so the bad guys in Aleppo won’t get wiped out by the Syrians, Iranians and Russians.

↪ Reply
rrheard
Aug. 9 2016, 9:34 p.m.
Well short of employing nuclear weapons, in which case we’re all dead, future Pres. Hillary Clinton sparking it off with eitherIran or Russia, much less both of them, would be the end of America’s little experiment in empire.

America couldn’t defeat a pallet of cheese whiz much less the Iranians or Russians. America couldn’t defeat the people of Viet Nam, couldn’t defeat the decades long sanctioned people of Iraq, and sure as shit got its ass handed to it by the various warring folks in Afghanistan.

So, I’m really trying to figure out which geniuses at the Pentagon or various other alphabet agencies think provoking the Iranians and Russians (who have just as many nukes as we do) is a smart move.

I’m all for America’s little experiment in empire ending. But I’d really prefer not to see it end at the receiving end of a bunch of mushroom clouds or the utter defeat of our military on Syrian soil with either the Iranians or Russians sending our kids home in a whole lot of body bags.

Really and truly the dumbest fucking idea I’ve heard in my lifetime. I looked seriously into moving to Canada or South America when Shrub was elected. But if this is the sort of “advice” Hillary Clinton will consider seriously as POTUS then that makes her marginally worse then Shrub coming right out of the gate, and I better get back on the phone to those immigration attorneys in both places and start liquidating what little in retirement and other assets I have and get to steppin’. Because sparking it off with Russia and/or Iran would be borderline suicidal for the US with or with the help of the British, French, Turks and whatever other barely armed allies are part of NATO.

Mike Morell’s Performance of “Intelligence”

Eli Lake’s Portrayal of the CIA Director Campaign: Drones, Benghazi, and … ?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171943

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/
Thanks I just got done reading that and also found this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.

The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.

Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.

China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.

The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.

Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.

A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.

“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.

Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.

“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.

He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.

Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.

He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

His views on torture resemble Trump far more than the candidate he's endorsing- ironic huh?

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/
Thanks I just got done reading that and also found this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.

The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.

Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.

China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.

The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.

Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.

A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.

“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.

Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.

“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.

He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.

Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.

He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

His views on torture resemble Trump far more than the candidate he's endorsing- ironic huh?

Not surpised what the Pakistanis are doing, they were unhappy with the dronekillings since a longer time. http://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-accuses-us-of-violating-national-sovereignty-with-taliban-drone-strike/a-19276393

Concerning your dailybeast link, have seen it somewhere else today (I guess you know where) and read it, so thanks for sharing it.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171979

The only one I'm supporting is Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party. I've had enough of the pro-war pro-torture antics of both the Republicans and the Democrats. I hope they both lose- because if either of them win- the American people lose but especially the people of the world who will suffer unnecessary casualties and deaths in decades of wars. And don't be surprised when these wars cause more terrorist attacks rather than less. How else can one expect people to respond when they get their lives ruined?

Violence only begets more violence.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171613

Jamesie wrote:

Sure, the English do have reputation to defend as racists, but oh boy, think of some of the others!

The Spaniards and Portuguese wouldn't p*ss on a dark skinned guy if he was on fire -- and in fact, they had a nasty reputation for setting them on fire (and yes, I know they did burn some of their own, but still).

The Portuguese held East Timor for 400 years. At the end of that time, 1975, there was no educational institution in East Timor that was higher than high (secondary) school, nd there were only a couple of them to serve 400,000 people. There was a handful of university graduates, possibly all of mixed race. In the 60s, they were still exiling people of the "wrong" political views. Oh -- that was the ultra right wing dictatorship, of course.

The Belgians cut off the hands and feet of recalcitrant workers in the Congo and when they left, they took everything with them, even the chalk out of the (few) classrooms.

The French? They're like Roger the Lodger -- once in, you can't get rid of them. The Vietnamese had to fight a protracted and very, very bloody war against them, as did the Algerians.

The white elite in Brazil (Portuguese language) and Argentina (Spanish) provided homes away from home to surviving Nazi bigwigs at the end of WW II. 'nuff said, I think.

The Japanese saw (see?) themselves as a superior race, and the Chinese are not backwards in coming forwards in such matters either.

Sleep a little easier, anglophones are not alone.
Yes, humans of every ilk have a portion of their number who tend to the tribal, some of which tribalism expresses itself as racism. However, we anglos do seem to find ways to allow our own variety of racist traditions to survive, one way or another, within institutions such as prisons, the police and other authoritative organisations; and despite a lot of successful effort to make racism less endemic elsewhere in our various cultures and behaviours.

Racism has also morphed into other forms, such as the Islamophobia of Pap-types, as well as other hatreds based in different "ethnicity".

SirLataxe
Jamesie wrote:

Sure, the English do have reputation to defend as racists, but oh boy, think of some of the others!

The Spaniards and Portuguese wouldn't p*ss on a dark skinned guy if he was on fire -- and in fact, they had a nasty reputation for setting them on fire (and yes, I know they did burn some of their own, but still).

The Portuguese held East Timor for 400 years. At the end of that time, 1975, there was no educational institution in East Timor that was higher than high (secondary) school, nd there were only a couple of them to serve 400,000 people. There was a handful of university graduates, possibly all of mixed race. In the 60s, they were still exiling people of the "wrong" political views. Oh -- that was the ultra right wing dictatorship, of course.

The Belgians cut off the hands and feet of recalcitrant workers in the Congo and when they left, they took everything with them, even the chalk out of the (few) classrooms.

The French? They're like Roger the Lodger -- once in, you can't get rid of them. The Vietnamese had to fight a protracted and very, very bloody war against them, as did the Algerians.

The white elite in Brazil (Portuguese language) and Argentina (Spanish) provided homes away from home to surviving Nazi bigwigs at the end of WW II. 'nuff said, I think.

The Japanese saw (see?) themselves as a superior race, and the Chinese are not backwards in coming forwards in such matters either.

Sleep a little easier, anglophones are not alone.
Yes, humans of every ilk have a portion of their number who tend to the tribal, some of which tribalism expresses itself as racism. However, we anglos do seem to find ways to allow our own variety of racist traditions to survive, one way or another, within institutions such as prisons, the police and other authoritative organisations; and despite a lot of successful effort to make racism less endemic elsewhere in our various cultures and behaviours.

Racism has also morphed into other forms, such as the Islamophobia of Pap-types, as well as other hatreds based in different "ethnicity".

SirLataxe

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171788

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange implied in an interview that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was the source of a trove of damaging emails the rogue website posted just days before the party's convention.

Speaking to Dutch television program Nieuswsuur Tuesday after earlier announcing a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's killer, Assange said the July 10 murder of Rich in Northwest Washington was an example of the risk leakers undertake.
"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back.

Follow
WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.
11:58 AM - 9 Aug 2016
8,737 8,737 Retweets 9,126 9,126 likes
"No," he said. "There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks."

When pressed as to whether Rich was, in fact, the leaker, Assange stated that the organization does not reveal its sources.

2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →
Police have said they believe the motive was robbery, and that there is no evidence Rich's murder was connected to his work. But Rich's father has said the 4 a.m. murder, in which Rich was shot several times from behind, did not appear to be a robbery, as his son's wallet and watch were not taken.
Related Image

dncmurderExpand / Contract
Police say no witnesses to Rich's murder have come forward.
When police found Rich, he was still conscious and breathing. He was transported to a hospital where he later died. No witnesses have come forward and police have no suspects. The WikiLeaks reward adds to a $25,000 reward posted by Washington police.
WikiLeaks’ email dump of DNC files, which embarrassed the party and showed possible collusion to block Bernie Sanders from the nomination, occurred 12 days after his death. Rich was the DNC’s director of voter expansion.

Washington Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham said the department appreciates WikiLeaks offering of a reward.

“We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," Newsham added.

The 45-year-old Assange is founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, which touts itself as a nonprofit journalistic organization. WikiLeaks specializes in publishing online leaked documents and classified information gleaned from an international network of secret sources.

The Australian has been subject to extradition to Sweden since 2010, wher he is wanted for questioning in a rape case that his supporters claim is a pretext to muzzle his efforts. He has been holed up in Ecuador's United Kingdom embassy since he was granted asylum there in August 2012.

Assange participated in the interview from inside the embassy.
108New CommentsRefresh
straigthline
straigthline 5 minutes ago
Seth Rich said "If something happens to me, it was murder"

FlagShare3LikeReply
mtorsd
mtorsd 2 minutes ago
@straigthline

Well, obviously it was murder.
FlagShareLikeReply
rdixonshell
rdixonshell 5 minutes ago
Someday this is all going to make a great movie ! Get Tarantino to direct it.

FlagShareLikeReply
1new reply
TheHonorableEagle
TheHonorableEagle 2 minutes ago
@rdixonshell F Tarantino. I hope he chokes on a hot dog.

FlagShare2LikeReply
shiitake
shiitake 5 minutes ago
The Clintons, Obama and the DNC just want Americans to go back to sleep.

Pay no attention people.
FlagShare4LikeReply
MauiAl
MauiAl 5 minutes ago
And very soon: Assange - 3, Clinton - 0, just before the debates,,, yum

108New CommentsRefresh
straigthline
straigthline 5 minutes ago
Seth Rich said "If something happens to me, it was murder"

FlagShare3LikeReply
mtorsd
mtorsd 2 minutes ago
@straigthline

Well, obviously it was murder.
FlagShareLikeReply
rdixonshell
rdixonshell 5 minutes ago
Someday this is all going to make a great movie ! Get Tarantino to direct it.

FlagShareLikeReply
1new reply
TheHonorableEagle
TheHonorableEagle 2 minutes ago
@rdixonshell F Tarantino. I hope he chokes on a hot dog.

FlagShare2LikeReply
shiitake
shiitake 5 minutes ago
The Clintons, Obama and the DNC just want Americans to go back to sleep.

Pay no attention people.
FlagShare4LikeReply
MauiAl
MauiAl 5 minutes ago
And very soon: Assange - 3, Clinton - 0, just before the debates,,, yum

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/bernie-sanders-starts-looking-beyond-2016-with-endorsements/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/29/who-will-lead-the-progressive-movement-after-bernie-sanders-and-elizabeth-warren-here-are-6-who-could/?tid=a_inl

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171778
The main message to take home is how detrimental Colonization has been in world history- whether it was the Mongols, Ancient Rome, Britain in Scotland and Ireland, Britain in India and the Middle East, France in Algeria, the Opium trade with China, etc. When one group of people claim "superiority" over another and try to take over their land, one can only expect violence- whether in the form of war or "terrorism." It continues to this day.

What happened to make some sects of Islam so violent was what was done to them by the Mongols AND the British. If you read about Islam during the Middle Ages it was FAR more progressive and made many scientific, medical and mathematical discoveries. As a matter of fact, it was Christianity back then which was backwards.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

lmao awww did you get little feelings hurt? Cant handle the revelations of corruption in the Democratic Party can we, little boy? Poor kid......

One day you'll be smart enough to realize that both of your political parties are corrupt and neither should be supported. The rest of the world has, so it's time for you to catch up.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what's really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would "jail" Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting "released." She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

There is no Russian "propaganda" to spread. Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I'd compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump's tax returns that indicate the reason he won't release them is because it shows a link between Trump's real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what's really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would "jail" Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting "released." She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171837

There is no Russian "propaganda" to spread. No one outside of Russia finds that kind of authoritarianism acceptable (unless they're an authoritarian themselves.) Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I'd compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump's tax returns that indicate the reason he won't release them is because it shows a link between Trump's real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what's really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would "jail" Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting "released." She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171861

I'm now a Green Party supporter, although I'm beginning to realize that George Washington was right for his disdain of ANY political party.

The questions concerning Clinton's warhawkism are real- and dispeccable Leon Panetta lies at the core of it with his "30 years war" propaganda and his trying to cover up torture at Gitmo and the shouting down of "No More War" chanters with faux-"patriotic" "USA" chants at the convention.

The funny thing is the DNC honored Panetta and yet Panetta spoke out against Obama in his book. If you want to find out why terrorism happens, it is a direct result of what America does overseas- and Panetta is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Thanks for sharing, also emptywheel was commenting on this guy.

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

Mike Morell’s Performance of “Intelligence”

The Dianne Feinstein-Jose Rodriguez Grudge Match

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

EX-CIA DIRECTOR WHO ENDORSED CLINTON CALLS FOR KILLING IRANIANS AND RUSSIANS IN SYRIA
Murtaza Hussain
Aug. 9 2016, 4:49 p.m.
FORMER ACTING CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview Monday that U.S. policy in Syria should be to make Iran and Russia “pay a price” by arming local groups and instructing them to kill Iranian and Russian personnel in the country.

Morell was appearing on the Charlie Rose show on PBS in the wake of his publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton on the New York Times opinion pages.

Clinton has expressed support for increased military intervention in Syria against Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government. Iran and Russia are backing Assad.

“What they need is to have the Russians and Iranians pay a little price,” Morell said. “When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons to the Shia militia, who were killing American soldiers, right? The Iranians were making us pay a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price.”

Morell said the killing of Russians and Iranians should be undertaken “covertly, so you don’t tell the world about it, you don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say ‘we did this.’ But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”

Morell also proposed that U.S. forces begin bombing Syrian government installations, including government offices, aircraft and presidential guard positions. The former acting CIA director said that he wanted to “scare Assad.” Morell clarified that he wasn’t actually calling for Assad’s assassination.

He compared his proposal to American support for groups that targeted Russian forces in Afghanistan during the 1980’s — efforts that later helped incubate al Qaeda. He seemed unconcerned about how other parties might respond to such actions, beyond speculating that they might provide leverage for future negotiations.

If put into effect, Morell’s plans would entail a massive escalation of American covert military involvement in Syria that would bring the United States much closer to direct confrontation with Russia and Iran.

Morell’s endorsement of Clinton was quickly seen as a sign that he was interested in a role in a possible Clinton administration. He wrote that Clinton would be a “highly qualified commander in chief” and a “strong proponent of a more aggressive approach” to the conflict in Syria.

Morell told Rose that he had not discussed his proposal to kill Russian and Iranian personnel in Syria with Clinton, though he believed she was supportive of efforts to gain “diplomatic leverage.”

After leaving the CIA in 2013, Morell authored a memoir entitled “The Great War of Our Time.” The book was widely criticized for defending detainee torture in the post-9/11 era. Morell was also a co-author of a “rebuttal” to the Senate Intelligence Committee torture report.

Last week, CBS announced that Morell had left his role as a network news analyst so that he could begin publicly supporting Clinton’s run. During his interview with Rose, Morell continued to heap praise on Clinton’s perspective on U.S. relations with Syria, Russia and Iran.

This weekend, Hillary Clinton touted Morell’s endorsement on her Twitter page:

In other circles, Morell’s op-ed generated criticism of his role in defending torture, and the Times‘s failure to identify his employment at a consulting firm with strong ties to Clinton:

Follow
Domenic Powell @_vectorist
I ran the CIA, defended torture, now work for a former Clinton aide, and will accordingly endorse Hillary Clinton http://gawker.com/i-ran-the-c-i-a-now-i-work-for-a-longtime-clinton-ally-1784871887
11:19 AM - 5 Aug 2016
Photo published for I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally's Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary...
I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally's Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary...
On Friday, the New York Times ran an op-ed penned by Michael Morell, a 33-year veteran of the Central Intelligence agency who served as its acting director and deputy director from 2010 to 2013....
gawker.com
3 3 Retweets 5 5 likes
The Charlie Rose interview led one blogger to further update the title of Morell’s op-ed:
Follow
Christoph Germann @newgreatgame
"I ran the CIA now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton and I want Hillary to kill lots of Russians and Iranians in Syria":
9:47 PM - 8 Aug 2016
1,520 1,520 Retweets 838 838 likes
Top photo: Morell testifies on Capitol Hi

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has released its internal guidelines for how it decides to kill or capture alleged terrorists around the globe, three years after they came into effect. They provide a look at the drone war bureaucracy behind hundreds of strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere, a system President Obama will hand off to his successor.

The guidelines show the process is concentrated at the White House, specifically in the National Security Council. They also describe the process for approving so-called signature strikes, where the target of the strike is not a known “high value terrorist,” but rather some other “terrorist target,” which could be a group of people exhibiting suspect behavior, or a vehicle, building or other infrastructure.

Amid all these procedural details, however, the presidential policy guidance, or “playbook,” as it has been called, does not provide new insight into when, where, and under what authorities someone can be killed, or what kind of intelligence is necessary to make that decision.

Much of the document, which is dated May 22, 2013, echoes public statements by administration officials over the past several years and previously-released material. The general standards for killing terrorist targets away from active battlefields were made public that May, when the president gave a speech and issued an abbreviated version of the guidance, promising that the United States would only undertake lethal action against a terrorist if they posed a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons, and if capture was not feasible.

It took a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union to get the full 18-page version of the guidance declassified, with some redactions.

“This document doesn’t tell us anything new about the substantive standards that they use to determine if someone can be targeted,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU. “We’d hope that they’d fill out what they mean by ‘continuing’ and ‘imminent,’ or ‘feasible’ or ‘unfeasible.’”

In a statement, the ACLU also questioned how the document’s “relatively stringent standards can be reconciled with the accounts of eye witnesses, journalists, and human rights researches who have documented large numbers of bystander casualties” from drone strikes.

The People Who Approve “Direct Actions”

According to the guidance, each operating agency – the CIA or the Defense Department – prepares “operational plans for taking direct actions,” whether strikes or captures, in different situations. Those plans undergo a legal review by the agencies’ general counsels and a legal adviser to the National Security Council, and then are considered by a circle of advisers at the White House known as the Principals and Principals’ Deputies Committees, made up of the heads or deputy heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, as well as the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Counterterrorism Center.

The plans must include legal, tactical and policy rationale for undertaking the strike, what kind of “strike and surveillance assets” would be used, and how long the authority to take action would remain in place. Once the committee arrives at its decision on the plan, it is communicated to the president for his final approval.

The guidance indicates that the president does not have to sign off on individual names of high-value targets to be killed, unless there is disagreement within the National Security Council. If the individual is a U.S. person, the Justice Department needs to weigh in.

If an agency wants to nominate an individual to be killed, they make a profile of them based on intelligence reporting, which is reviewed by an interagency panel led by the White House counterterrorism adviser, currently Lisa Monaco. Again, the profile passes through lawyers at the agency and at the National Security Council before going to the Deputies Committee and ultimately the Principals Committee for a final decision.

Although the process indicates a high degree of control in the White House, generally speaking, the actual operation is still carried out under the command of the military or CIA.

A similar process is followed for approving plans for strikes against “terrorist targets other than high-value terrorists.” The section seems to address “signature strikes,” in which the United States has attacked people without knowing their identity. The examples given in the policy guidance include vehicles carrying improvised explosive devices, or “infrastructure, including explosives storage facilities.” For an actual strike, it appears from the guidance that the Principals Committee and the president get involved only when there is disagreement about the operation.

If the suspect is to be captured, a rare occurrence under Obama, the president also approves the plan. Among the various considerations going into a decision to capture someone, such as how and where they would be detained and interrogated, and if they could be tried in civilian court or military commission, one thing is spelled out clearly: “In no event will detainees be brought to the detention facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.”

The process laid out in the guidance is more detailed but does not differ substantially from the one described in a 2013 Defense Department Power Point presentation published by The Intercept last fall, although that document included additional information on how the military carried out its strikes in Yemen and Somalia at the time. For instance, the presentation included the detail that once a target was approved by the White House, the military had a 60-day window to pursue the operation.

“Associated Forces” and Other Limits

The newly-issued guidance does not specify how long authorities for given operations last, although it mentions that the case against individuals on the list for lethal strikes must be reviewed each year. It also notes that if “a capture option” becomes possible at any point, there should be an expedited reevaluation of the authority to kill them.

The Defense Department also released two heavily redacted documents describing its implementation of the policy guidance, along with a letter to the Senate from 2014, stating that the Pentagon considers the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and other groups fighting alongside them against U.S. forces in Afghanistan to be “associated forces” of Al Qaeda, along with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates in Yemen. Some portions of the list of associated forces and all the groups considered “affiliates” of Al Qaeda are blacked out.

Associated forces would fall under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which became law just a week after 9/11, and which the administration has used to justify 15 years of lethal operations in many countries. Yet the White House process, the Pentagon document notes, involves a “target-by-target analysis” of legal authorities, and groups not currently identified as associated forces could still be targeted if a new situation arose. The guidance also includes a large waiver for the president to disregard it in cases of “national self-defense,” “fleeting opportunities,” or even to authorize a strike against someone who posed a threat “to another country’s persons.”

The guidance does not apply to operations in “areas of active hostilities,” which the administration currently defines as Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. A White House spokesman, Ned Price, pushed back on reports that strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, along the border, are not covered by the guidance, but would not clarify whether in some instances strikes in the border region might fall into the administration’s definition of active hostilities.

The guidance is one more exhibit in the Obama administration’s institutionalization of counterterrorism strikes, by drones and other means, far from conventional battlefields. Last month, the White House released casualty figures for such strikes during Obama’s presidency, stating that as many as 2,600 people had been killed in 473 strikes in 7 years. The administration believed that between 64 and 116 of them were civilians – a number disputed by outside observers, who put the total number of civilians harmed between 200 and 1000.

Even as the frequency of drone strikes, especially by the CIA, has declined markedly in the last years of Obama’s presidency, the practice has not ended. The U.S. military hit a Taliban leader in a strike in Pakistan in May, also killing a taxi driver. Strikes in Yemen have been more frequent, and there were two massive attacks in Yemen and Somalia in March killed dozens of alleged fighters.

https://theintercept.com/staff/cora/

cora.currier@theintercept.com

https://twitter.com/@coracurrier

William Torres
Aug. 9 2016, 5:19 a.m.
U.S.A. is Terrorist #1 at home and abroad.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 2:25 a.m.
http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.
The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.
Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.
China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.
The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.
Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.
A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.
“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.
Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.
“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.
He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.
Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.
He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

↪ Reply
Nick Torrent ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 2:42 a.m.
So Pakistan is opposed to the drone strikes but is incapable of doing anything about it?

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ Nick Torrent
Aug. 9 2016, 2:45 a.m.
What do you suggest they do? Shoot down a US drone? How will the US retaliate?

Pakistan is like a battered wife when it comes to the US.

Recall, the CIA guy who murdered two Pakistanis in broad daylight? Pakistan was forced to let him go.

By the way all this was discussed by me in comments at https://theintercept.com/2016/07/18/would-turkey-be-justified-in-kidnapping-or-drone-killing-the-turkish-cleric-in-pennsylvania/

↪ Reply

Clark
Aug. 10 2016, 8:32 a.m.
“WE think the price is worth it” (emphasis added).

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

↪ Reply
Si1ver1ock
Aug. 10 2016, 6:51 a.m.
Plausible Deniability is dead. Stories originating from the United States government are no longer plausible.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

↪ Reply
raymond
Aug. 10 2016, 5:29 a.m.
Yeah !…this man is ready for any “asylum”…right now !!..with people like this one roaming free in the streets, the world is in Real Peril !!…

↪ Reply
Karma
Aug. 10 2016, 4:39 a.m.
Super Provacative! Guess it won’t be any surprise now if Russian & Iranian troops start dying ‘mysteriously’.

↪ Reply
Deschutes
Aug. 10 2016, 3:48 a.m.
Hey I have an idea: if Michael Morell is so eager to kill lots more Syrians, Russians and Iranians why doesn’t he dress his chickenshit ass up in a white T-shirt with a big U.S. flag on the front and backside, along with some stars and stripes shorts–then have the airforce airdrop his ass into ISIS controlled territory with a gun? Its time for Mikey boy to to stop bloviating and start workin’ you CIA bitch!

↪ Reply
barabbas ↪ Deschutes
Aug. 10 2016, 4:29 a.m.
yes sir. Real Americans everywhere feel the same way. We dont have leaders, we have a shitload of profiteering pirates wanting to sacifice Americans for the greed of their paymasters.

THAT MUST END.

↪ Reply
Fred Cowan
Aug. 10 2016, 3:39 a.m.
Hillary or Trump if WE the people do not step up and “check their fire” something Very bad may happen. Trump will inspire such resistance, Hillary will slide it past us and WE may end up in a bigger war than We bargained for.

↪ Reply
SignalDetected
Aug. 10 2016, 2:25 a.m.
If evolution made people look the way they behave, the creatures in Washington would have by now shark teeth coming out of their mount, eyes, ears and nose.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:02 a.m.
Ex-CIA spook who whitewashed Benghazi endorses Hillary https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/08/08/ex-cia-spook-who-whitewashed-benghazi-endorses-hillary/

The very same Michael Morell

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:06 a.m.
Here are other achievements of Michael Morell

https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/michael-morell/

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 11:43 p.m.
It would be good to find out what were Michael Morell’s CIA assignments around 9/11.

According to wikipedia:

Morell “also managed the staff that produced the Presidential Daily Briefings for President George W. Bush. Morell was Bush’s briefer during the September 11, 2001, attacks, and has been quoted as saying, “I would bet every dollar I have that it’s al Qaeda.” Later, Morell was a trusted asset to President Barack Obama in the Osama bin Laden raid on May 2, 2011.[1][2]””

↪ Reply
TimN
Aug. 9 2016, 11:38 p.m.
Wow, another dumb fuck about to be placed in a position where he will likely do real harm.

↪ Reply
photosymbiosis
Aug. 9 2016, 10:25 p.m.
This is like an ex-KGB head saying that Russia should arm Al Qaeda in Yemen to kill Saudis and Americans and Brits over the Yemen War.

And, in any case, the covert arming and financing of radical Islamic groups in Syria by the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and Turkey from late 2011 through 2015 is a well-established fact, even if the media refuses to report on it.

Morrell’s op-ed is probably just a PR effort aimed at covering up this fact; a detailed investigation of CIA training camps in Turkey and Jordan would likely reveal that most of their trained fighters defected to ISIS or Al Qaeda once they entered Iraq. Morell, after all, was working under Leon Panetta when the whole Libyan-Syrian debacle was initiated; he has a lot to cover up, as does Clinton.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ photosymbiosis
Aug. 9 2016, 11:21 p.m.
Yeah, looks like Mossad and the CIA are both very worried that their men who created ISIS and are part of ISIS might now get destroyed in Syria by the Russians.

↪ Reply
Orville ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:32 a.m.
One can hope the turnaround in the war will continue, so that IS, Al-Nusra, Al-Sham and their allies are defeated before Clinton gets voted in and decides to change sides in the War on Terror, like she did in Libya. The Russophobes are already pushing for a ceasefire (or intervention, like they did in Libya) so the bad guys in Aleppo won’t get wiped out by the Syrians, Iranians and Russians.

↪ Reply
rrheard
Aug. 9 2016, 9:34 p.m.
Well short of employing nuclear weapons, in which case we’re all dead, future Pres. Hillary Clinton sparking it off with eitherIran or Russia, much less both of them, would be the end of America’s little experiment in empire.

America couldn’t defeat a pallet of cheese whiz much less the Iranians or Russians. America couldn’t defeat the people of Viet Nam, couldn’t defeat the decades long sanctioned people of Iraq, and sure as shit got its ass handed to it by the various warring folks in Afghanistan.

So, I’m really trying to figure out which geniuses at the Pentagon or various other alphabet agencies think provoking the Iranians and Russians (who have just as many nukes as we do) is a smart move.

I’m all for America’s little experiment in empire ending. But I’d really prefer not to see it end at the receiving end of a bunch of mushroom clouds or the utter defeat of our military on Syrian soil with either the Iranians or Russians sending our kids home in a whole lot of body bags.

Really and truly the dumbest fucking idea I’ve heard in my lifetime. I looked seriously into moving to Canada or South America when Shrub was elected. But if this is the sort of “advice” Hillary Clinton will consider seriously as POTUS then that makes her marginally worse then Shrub coming right out of the gate, and I better get back on the phone to those immigration attorneys in both places and start liquidating what little in retirement and other assets I have and get to steppin’. Because sparking it off with Russia and/or Iran would be borderline suicidal for the US with or with the help of the British, French, Turks and whatever other barely armed allies are part of NATO.

Mike Morell’s Performance of “Intelligence”

Eli Lake’s Portrayal of the CIA Director Campaign: Drones, Benghazi, and … ?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171943

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/
Thanks I just got done reading that and also found this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.

The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.

Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.

China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.

The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.

Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.

A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.

“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.

Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.

“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.

He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.

Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.

He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

His views on torture resemble Trump far more than the candidate he's endorsing- ironic huh?

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/
Thanks I just got done reading that and also found this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.

The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.

Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.

China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.

The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.

Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.

A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.

“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.

Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.

“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.

He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.

Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.

He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

His views on torture resemble Trump far more than the candidate he's endorsing- ironic huh?

Not surpised what the Pakistanis are doing, they were unhappy with the dronekillings since a longer time. http://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-accuses-us-of-violating-national-sovereignty-with-taliban-drone-strike/a-19276393

Concerning your dailybeast link, have seen it somewhere else today (I guess you know where) and read it, so thanks for sharing it.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171979

The only one I'm supporting is Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party. I've had enough of the pro-war pro-torture antics of both the Republicans and the Democrats. I hope they both lose- because if either of them win- the American people lose but especially the people of the world who will suffer unnecessary casualties and deaths in decades of wars. And don't be surprised when these wars cause more terrorist attacks rather than less. How else can one expect people to respond when they get their lives ruined?

Violence only begets more violence.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171613

Jamesie wrote:

Sure, the English do have reputation to defend as racists, but oh boy, think of some of the others!

The Spaniards and Portuguese wouldn't p*ss on a dark skinned guy if he was on fire -- and in fact, they had a nasty reputation for setting them on fire (and yes, I know they did burn some of their own, but still).

The Portuguese held East Timor for 400 years. At the end of that time, 1975, there was no educational institution in East Timor that was higher than high (secondary) school, nd there were only a couple of them to serve 400,000 people. There was a handful of university graduates, possibly all of mixed race. In the 60s, they were still exiling people of the "wrong" political views. Oh -- that was the ultra right wing dictatorship, of course.

The Belgians cut off the hands and feet of recalcitrant workers in the Congo and when they left, they took everything with them, even the chalk out of the (few) classrooms.

The French? They're like Roger the Lodger -- once in, you can't get rid of them. The Vietnamese had to fight a protracted and very, very bloody war against them, as did the Algerians.

The white elite in Brazil (Portuguese language) and Argentina (Spanish) provided homes away from home to surviving Nazi bigwigs at the end of WW II. 'nuff said, I think.

The Japanese saw (see?) themselves as a superior race, and the Chinese are not backwards in coming forwards in such matters either.

Sleep a little easier, anglophones are not alone.
Yes, humans of every ilk have a portion of their number who tend to the tribal, some of which tribalism expresses itself as racism. However, we anglos do seem to find ways to allow our own variety of racist traditions to survive, one way or another, within institutions such as prisons, the police and other authoritative organisations; and despite a lot of successful effort to make racism less endemic elsewhere in our various cultures and behaviours.

Racism has also morphed into other forms, such as the Islamophobia of Pap-types, as well as other hatreds based in different "ethnicity".

SirLataxe
Jamesie wrote:

Sure, the English do have reputation to defend as racists, but oh boy, think of some of the others!

The Spaniards and Portuguese wouldn't p*ss on a dark skinned guy if he was on fire -- and in fact, they had a nasty reputation for setting them on fire (and yes, I know they did burn some of their own, but still).

The Portuguese held East Timor for 400 years. At the end of that time, 1975, there was no educational institution in East Timor that was higher than high (secondary) school, nd there were only a couple of them to serve 400,000 people. There was a handful of university graduates, possibly all of mixed race. In the 60s, they were still exiling people of the "wrong" political views. Oh -- that was the ultra right wing dictatorship, of course.

The Belgians cut off the hands and feet of recalcitrant workers in the Congo and when they left, they took everything with them, even the chalk out of the (few) classrooms.

The French? They're like Roger the Lodger -- once in, you can't get rid of them. The Vietnamese had to fight a protracted and very, very bloody war against them, as did the Algerians.

The white elite in Brazil (Portuguese language) and Argentina (Spanish) provided homes away from home to surviving Nazi bigwigs at the end of WW II. 'nuff said, I think.

The Japanese saw (see?) themselves as a superior race, and the Chinese are not backwards in coming forwards in such matters either.

Sleep a little easier, anglophones are not alone.
Yes, humans of every ilk have a portion of their number who tend to the tribal, some of which tribalism expresses itself as racism. However, we anglos do seem to find ways to allow our own variety of racist traditions to survive, one way or another, within institutions such as prisons, the police and other authoritative organisations; and despite a lot of successful effort to make racism less endemic elsewhere in our various cultures and behaviours.

Racism has also morphed into other forms, such as the Islamophobia of Pap-types, as well as other hatreds based in different "ethnicity".

SirLataxe

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171788

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange implied in an interview that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was the source of a trove of damaging emails the rogue website posted just days before the party's convention.

Speaking to Dutch television program Nieuswsuur Tuesday after earlier announcing a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's killer, Assange said the July 10 murder of Rich in Northwest Washington was an example of the risk leakers undertake.
"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back.

Follow
WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.
11:58 AM - 9 Aug 2016
8,737 8,737 Retweets 9,126 9,126 likes
"No," he said. "There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks."

When pressed as to whether Rich was, in fact, the leaker, Assange stated that the organization does not reveal its sources.

2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →
Police have said they believe the motive was robbery, and that there is no evidence Rich's murder was connected to his work. But Rich's father has said the 4 a.m. murder, in which Rich was shot several times from behind, did not appear to be a robbery, as his son's wallet and watch were not taken.
Related Image

dncmurderExpand / Contract
Police say no witnesses to Rich's murder have come forward.
When police found Rich, he was still conscious and breathing. He was transported to a hospital where he later died. No witnesses have come forward and police have no suspects. The WikiLeaks reward adds to a $25,000 reward posted by Washington police.
WikiLeaks’ email dump of DNC files, which embarrassed the party and showed possible collusion to block Bernie Sanders from the nomination, occurred 12 days after his death. Rich was the DNC’s director of voter expansion.

Washington Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham said the department appreciates WikiLeaks offering of a reward.

“We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," Newsham added.

The 45-year-old Assange is founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, which touts itself as a nonprofit journalistic organization. WikiLeaks specializes in publishing online leaked documents and classified information gleaned from an international network of secret sources.

The Australian has been subject to extradition to Sweden since 2010, wher he is wanted for questioning in a rape case that his supporters claim is a pretext to muzzle his efforts. He has been holed up in Ecuador's United Kingdom embassy since he was granted asylum there in August 2012.

Assange participated in the interview from inside the embassy.
108New CommentsRefresh
straigthline
straigthline 5 minutes ago
Seth Rich said "If something happens to me, it was murder"

FlagShare3LikeReply
mtorsd
mtorsd 2 minutes ago
@straigthline

Well, obviously it was murder.
FlagShareLikeReply
rdixonshell
rdixonshell 5 minutes ago
Someday this is all going to make a great movie ! Get Tarantino to direct it.

FlagShareLikeReply
1new reply
TheHonorableEagle
TheHonorableEagle 2 minutes ago
@rdixonshell F Tarantino. I hope he chokes on a hot dog.

FlagShare2LikeReply
shiitake
shiitake 5 minutes ago
The Clintons, Obama and the DNC just want Americans to go back to sleep.

Pay no attention people.
FlagShare4LikeReply
MauiAl
MauiAl 5 minutes ago
And very soon: Assange - 3, Clinton - 0, just before the debates,,, yum

108New CommentsRefresh
straigthline
straigthline 5 minutes ago
Seth Rich said "If something happens to me, it was murder"

FlagShare3LikeReply
mtorsd
mtorsd 2 minutes ago
@straigthline

Well, obviously it was murder.
FlagShareLikeReply
rdixonshell
rdixonshell 5 minutes ago
Someday this is all going to make a great movie ! Get Tarantino to direct it.

FlagShareLikeReply
1new reply
TheHonorableEagle
TheHonorableEagle 2 minutes ago
@rdixonshell F Tarantino. I hope he chokes on a hot dog.

FlagShare2LikeReply
shiitake
shiitake 5 minutes ago
The Clintons, Obama and the DNC just want Americans to go back to sleep.

Pay no attention people.
FlagShare4LikeReply
MauiAl
MauiAl 5 minutes ago
And very soon: Assange - 3, Clinton - 0, just before the debates,,, yum

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/clinton-accused-aiding-moscow-ops-with-push-for-russian-silicon-valley.html

A 2010 program headed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to help Moscow develop a “Russian Silicon Valley” may instead have drawn some of America’s biggest tech companies into “industrial espionage” – even advancing the country’s military and spying operations, according to a new report by Clinton critic Peter Schweizer’s Government Accountability Institute.

“There are serious national security questions that have been raised,” the report said.

The program was pitched as a partnership involving U.S. and Russian government entities and companies. Major U.S. corporations like Boeing, Google, General Electric, Cisco and Microsoft – also generous donors to the Clinton’s family foundation – were solicited by Clinton to invest more than a billion dollars in the Skolkovo tech park outside Moscow, formally called the Skolkovo Innovation Center. The goal, Clinton said in speeches and to Russian media, was to “break down barriers with Russia,” create “more free flow of people and information” between the two countries, and ultimately strengthen Russia.

“We want to help because we think that it’s in everyone’s interest do so,” Clinton said in a 2010 speech at a U.S.-Russia summit, as she discussed building a technology center “right outside Moscow.”

However, the project may have inadvertently launched some of these companies into risky terrain. The FBI issued an “extraordinary warning” in 2014 to companies doing business with the Skolkovo Foundation that “Skolkovo could draw them unwittingly into industrial espionage,” noting Skolkovo was a crucial part of Dmitry Medvedev’s plan to modernize Russia’s military.

The FBI also said Skolkovo “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research, development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial applications.”

Author Peter Schweizer shares latest adaptation of his work
2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →
Jeff Bechdel, communications director for the anti-Clinton America Rising PAC, said the Democratic presidential nominee effectively “put our national security at risk” with the project.

“Leveraging Clinton Foundation donors, Clinton assisted in speeding up the Russians’ weaponized technology sector, and in so doing, demonstrated she lacks the judgment necessary to determine friend from foe on the international stage,” he said in a statement.

The Clinton campaign is pushing back on the latest report from Schweizer’s group. Schweizer also authored the anti-Clinton book “Clinton Cash” and is a longtime adversary of the family.

“This report is just the latest false attack by Republican operative and friend of the Koch brothers, Peter Schweizer, who was widely discredited for making baseless accusations in his debunked Clinton Cash book, that even he admitted was not backed up by any evidence,” campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin said in a statement.

The campaign also rejected the group’s claim that the FBI and Army found the project substantially enhanced Russia’s military tech capabilities, citing a 2014 article in which the FBI acknowledged it did not have hard evidence of such activity.

The partnership itself stemmed from President Obama and the Clinton State Department’s efforts to “reset” relations with Russia early in the Obama administration. This included a plan to “identify areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”

The State Department paid for a delegation of 22 private tech entrepreneurs to go to Russia in May 2010, which led to an exclusive arrangement with Russia allowing entrance into what would become an industry tech park accommodating some 30,000 people.

“The State Department actively and aggressively encouraged American firms to participate in Skolkovo,” the Government Accountability Institute report said. “Indeed, many of the Memorandums of Understanding signed by U.S. companies to invest and cooperate in Skolkovo were signed under the auspices of Hillary Clinton’s State Department.”

Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo tech park development had major financial ties to the Clintons, the report said, noting 17 of 28 companies, both Russian and American, made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.

“During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties,” the report said.

Margaret E. Kosal, an associate professor at Georgia Tech’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, said while the project might have seemed a good opportunity to work in an emerging market, there are challenges working in Russia including dealing with cronyism and government bureaucracy.

But from a national security perspective, Kosal said the biggest concern is the ability of the Russian military to obtain, misuse, or develop nanotechnology for an application that catches the U.S. by surprise.

Relations with Russia have since become a focal point in the 2016 presidential election, with Clinton criticizing Republican opponent Donald Trump for both his campaign manager’s reported business ties to Russia and supposed lack of knowledge about international affairs. But Bechdel said history shows it is Clinton’s connections and relations that should be scrutinized.

"Clinton may talk a big game against Russia now, but when it mattered most and she had the opportunity to hold Russia accountable as Secretary of State, Clinton’s priority was aiding Russian efforts to accelerate their technology sector, not keeping America safe,” Bechdel said.

The Clinton Foundation did not respond to a media inquiry from FoxNews.com.

A spokeswoman for Skolkovo told the Irish-based Independent news that all allegations of Kremlin spying were false, claiming it is "an international project and all our operations are fully transparent for our Russian and international partners".

http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/07/Report-Skolkvovo-.pdf
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172250

Yes, that's a bit much but like I said, the US has nothing to brag about either. If the US really cared about stopping Russia, they should have stopped the genocide the Russians were doing in Chechnya. The fact that they led it happen enraged me. The US only cares when its profits are in question- come on, Siobhan, you already know this! And this is true of both Republicans and Democrats. And then they wonder why terrorism happens lol.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172223

yes and stop the US atrocities at the same time.

Why didn't America stop the atrocities being done in Chechnya? That enraged me. If America actually cared they would have stopped Russia then and there. America only cares when its money is in danger. THAT is what war is all about. And THAT is why you have terrorism here.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172158

You know that America is causing many/most of these atrocities with their drone strikes that kill thousands of innocent civilians right? And lying about it afterwards.

Not sitting back, but there are other ways to go about this that don't involve so much killing, torture, corrupt corporate mercenaries like Blackwater (yes all this started with Bush and Cheney but those who came later didn't exactly stop it) or "30 year wars" like what Leon Panetta wants. The fact is these groups arose because of America interventionism in the first place- even Saddam Hussein himself got into power because of the U.S. The whole war in Iraq was a farce, the consequences of which the world is paying for now. So learn a lesson about what intervening in the politics of other countries does and do not behave that way in the future.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172073

See neither side can be trusted in that respect. One reason I like hactivists is that they bring out the truth- like Trump's connections to the mafia. Clinton is just as corrupt. Just not as dumb.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172055

There is a reason both Trump and Clinton have the lowest ratings in candidate history. They're both awful. Of course Trump is wrong, but so is Clinton for being a war mongering pig. They have that in common.

The only one I'm supporting is Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party. I've had enough of the pro-war pro-torture antics of both the Republicans and the Democrats. I hope they both lose- because if either of them win- the American people lose but especially the people of the world who will suffer unnecessary casualties and deaths in decades of wars. And don't be surprised when these wars cause more terrorist attacks rather than less. How else can one expect people to respond when they get their lives ruined?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171981

That's ironic of you to say that considering you completely missed my point. When I said there is no Russian propaganda to spread, I meant that everyone generally understands how horrible of an authoritarian regime that is- no amount of propaganda could change their minds. You, as usual, Siobhan, are trying to change the argument. No one is going to argue about Putin and Trump being bad, what you're missing is that the Clintons and the Democratic party in general are just as bad as they are. They have hired and have been endorsed by pro-war pro-torture schills - which makes them just as bad as Trump.

Violence only begets more violence.

I'm now a Green Party supporter, although I'm beginning to realize that George Washington was right for his disdain of ANY political party.

The questions concerning Clinton's warhawkism are real- and dispeccable Leon Panetta lies at the core of it with his "30 years war" propaganda and his trying to cover up torture at Gitmo and the shouting down of "No More War" chanters with faux-"patriotic" "USA" chants at the convention.

The funny thing is the DNC honored Panetta and yet Panetta spoke out against Obama in his book. If you want to find out why terrorism happens, it is a direct result of what America does overseas- and Panetta is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I'd compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump's tax returns that indicate the reason he won't release them is because it shows a link between Trump's real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what's really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would "jail" Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting "released." She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

Answer: Clinton was there to support Wasserman-Schultz. That's enough for me to disavow HER. Go Green Party Go!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172266
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172266

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172194

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the person or organization in which they have a vested interest through character assassination or other means.
Oh then you must also be referring to the paid Clinton schills who were attacking Bernie supporters online. Like I said, she's just as bad as the one's you're referring to.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172182

The chances of Trump ever winning are about 1 in 1 billion if that. As a matter of fact, considering how close he and the Clintons were just prior to the election, it's quite possible there is an agreement between them that led him to run in the first place and now he's acting like a crackpot to make sure that Clinton wins. Trump was never qualified to lead, but even he can't be this dumb to say the things he's been saying.

The chances of Trump ever winning are about 1 in 1 billion if that. As a matter of fact, considering how close he and the Clintons were just prior to the election, it's quite possible there is an agreement between them that led him to run in the first place and now he's acting like a crackpot to make sure that Clinton wins. Trump was never qualified to lead, but even he can't be this dumb to say the things he's been saying.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172216

In the article, the police praised the actions of Assange in raising reward money. If anything they are left wingers, since Clinton is a pseudo-right winger lol.

The dad seems to agree with them:

Police have said they believe the motive was robbery, and that there is no evidence Rich's murder was connected to his work. But Rich's father has said the 4 a.m. murder, in which Rich was shot several times from behind, did not appear to be a robbery, as his son's wallet and watch were not taken.

When police found Rich, he was still conscious and breathing. He was transported to a hospital where he later died. No witnesses have come forward and police have no suspects. The WikiLeaks reward adds to a $25,000 reward posted by Washington police.

WikiLeaks’ email dump of DNC files, which embarrassed the party and showed possible collusion to block Bernie Sanders from the nomination, occurred 12 days after his death. Rich was the DNC’s director of voter expansion.

Washington Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham said the department appreciates WikiLeaks offering of a reward.

“We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," Newsham added.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172440

What Trump is doing is reducing the political process to that of some Banana Republic, with a Caudillo fixation. I can't believe how any American can still say that this creature should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.
J

He may really have sunk himself this time. No one can say for sure what he meant, but the media has already condemned him.

Sadly we will likely be stuck with the scandalous and dishonest establishment Democrat as president. What a sad state of affairs.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was the Clinton-Trump plan all along. Like I said before, besides their suspicious friendship and reports of Clinton encouraging Trump to run in a phone call prior to the primary process, no one this rich could possibly be that dumb to say things like that.

 

 

The road to Hell is blazed with money- so follow the money trail!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171462

Published August 3, 2016 | By emptywheel

Virtually the entire political class has now united to defeat Donald Trump, with Morning Joe today staging a Michael Hayden appearance that served largely to allow Scarborough to tell the story of Trump asking three times in a foreign policy briefing why the US couldn’t use its nukes. As Dan Drezner pointed out on Twitter, Scarborough says the event happened months ago — when the primary was still going on — but has just now staged its telling.

Beating Donald Trump is important. He’s a racist who aims to win by promising white working class people they can resume persecuting people of color again, and he is dangerously inconsistent. That said, he does want to spend lots on infrastructure and protect workers from the ravages of globalization, something often forgotten in depictions of him as entirely policy free.

But the transpartisan obsession with beating Trump has largely applauded two developments that, for liberals, for democrats, for those who believe in peace, for progressives, should be a worry.

First, the Neocon establishment has come out in enthusiastic support for Clinton, with ideologue Eliot Cohen orchestrating serial efforts (one that even includes John Yoo!!) to oppose Trump. They point to Trump’s erratic nature and more recently the theories of Putin’s influence. They do so even in the face of a report that Paul Manafort, through whom any Putin influence would be managed, is checking out.

I exchanged messages Tuesday evening with a longtime ally of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, whom I asked about who was calling the shots in the campaign. The response indicated that Manafort, a veteran of Republican politics brought in this spring for the transition from primaries to the general election, has lost control over his candidate.

“Manafort not challenging (Trump) anymore,” Manafort’s ally wrote. “Mailing it in. Staff suicidal.”
I’m getting whiplash following the Manchurian Trump stories. Maybe the ones suggesting Bill Clinton was behind the Trump run are the true ones after all.

And even while the focus has been on Russia’s alleged influence with Trump, there has been no focus on Hillary’s unquestioning support of Saudi Arabia (the country that had ties to 9/11) and Israel. Or on Hillary’s equally troubling policy proposals, such as starting a No Fly Zone over Russian planes. As Will Bunch noted in a great column, Democrats have become the party that shuns people who chant No More War.
So now the only question is why is Trump allowing himself to be used as a puppet to get Clinton elected. There must be something in it for him. I’m sure there is if the Clintons regain power. Saudi Arabia has been allowed to fly under the radar since money matters more than lives, of course.

The delegates didn’t hear from an Andrew Bacevich or the equivalent of James Madison, but they did get Panetta, who — as noted in this excellent analysis —has supported expanded war powers for the White House, failed to push for real accountability on Bush-era torture, and once suggested that “a 30-year war” will be needed against terrorism. Was it really rude for some of the DNC delegates to chant “no more war!” during Panetta’s speech? Or were some citizens desperately trying to be heard with a different point of view, in a nation so eager to squelch any public debate?

It should be a scandal that the United States drops bombs from flying death robots or our obscenely expensive military jets over countries like Libya, swaths of Africa, or Syria based only on a 15-year-old congressional resolution passed after an attack carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians loyal to a terrorist group that barely exists in 2016. But we’re afraid of any frank discussion of that, or the recent admission by the Obama administration that U.S. military actions in nations with which we’re not technically at war have killed 116 innocent civilians. That’s a number that experts find ridiculously low, by the way, and doesn’t as include asmany as 85 Syrian civilians who were killed in late July by a U.S. airstrike — a story that was all but ignored in the media. Even if you strongly believe that such collateral damage is necessary to defeat international terrorism, chanting “USA! USA!” to support militarism is both jingoistic and crudely callous toward the dead.
Not only has Hillary gotten the support of the people who brought us into Iraq based on a lie (she told her own little stretchers to get us into Libya), but we’re now drowning out any voice for peace.

Then there’s the parade of heinous billionaires Hillary has rolled out, with Mark Cuban, Mike Bloomberg, and now Meg Whitman. NYT’s coverage of Whitman’s announcement emphasizes that Hillary has been courting Republican billionaires since before she finalized the nomination and that Hillary’s pick of the pro-TPP pro-Wall Street Tim Kaine is what sealed the deal for Whitman.
The ironic thing is that the Democrats and Republicans really are two sides of the same coin (literally)- since they gravitate towards the same donors. The Clintons have taken rather large donations from the people who went after Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas debacle too.

Whitman, who said she would remain a Republican, brings with her a considerable network of contributors, some of whom she said were open to giving to Mrs. Clinton. She said she was willing to campaign for Mrs. Clinton, said she would do her best to gather checks for her campaign and indicated she would personally give to both Mrs. Clinton and her affiliated “super PACs.” An aide to Ms. Whitman said she would personally give at least an amount in the “mid-six figures” to the Clinton effort.

While Democrats openly appealed at their convention last week to Republicans uneasy with Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her top supporters have been making a similar cross-party pitch in private since before the Democratic nomination fight even came to its conclusion.

[snip]

She said she had told Mrs. Clinton that she wanted to see the two parties’ conventions and assess the running mates that each nominee chose before making her decision. When Mrs. Clinton selected Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a consensus-oriented figure, “that was a positive for me,” Ms. Whitman said.
Whitman’s nod to Kaine is of particular concern to me, as Democrats downplayed his anti-choice and pro-business policies, at least in public, until after the convention. Now, if anything happens to Hillary (who has some dangerously unhinged enemies), we’ll basically have a moderate Republican running the country.

It’s not just that Hillary has secretly been courting oligarchs since before she cemented the nomination. It’s that her post-convention politicking has focused on it, as if the approval of oligarchs is what it will take to win in midwest swing states.

The guy who will likely become Majority Leader is even more aggressively pursuing typical Republican voters (though this view — admittedly filtered through the potentially inaccurate National Review — has some huge logical contradictions, not to mention an odd idea of what it would take for Democrats to continue to win Illinois).
The funny thing is one of the criticisms Clinton used against Putin was that he jails oligarchs. Not that Putin is anything good, but that particular “criticism” should be considered a compliment.

“No guarantees, there never are, but the odds are more like than not that we will take back the Senate,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said at a forum sponsored by the Washington Post Thursday afternoon. Schumer will be the next majority or minority leader of the Senate Democrats, depending upon how November unfolds. He suggested that the electorate’s sense of economic gloom was actually working to his party’s advantage: “The electorate is moving in a more Democratic direction. When middle class incomes decline, people tend to move in a more progressive direction.”

Schumer’s optimism is driven more by national demographics than by the specific traits of his candidates. He contends that Millennials, or voters aged 18 to 35, will be the largest age group voting in this year’s electorate, even if they don’t turn out in massive numbers.

“The number one factor in whether we retake the Senate is whether Hillary Clinton does well, and I think she’s going to do really well,” Schumer says of his former fellow New York senator. He notes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged Senate Republicans in difficult races to localize their elections, rather than get too tied to Trump’s positions and comments and scoffs, “Sorry, Mitch, this is a national election if there ever was one.”

At least publicly, Schumer has no worries about his party’s dwindling fortunes among working-class white voters. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Democrats, it appears, want to become the party of the Republican soccer mom, which may work well with the bellicose warmongering, but which seems to view economic malaise as an opportunity rather than a problem.

So yeah, by all means, let’s beat the orange crazy man.

But let’s also be cognizant of the more politically palatable craziness that gets embraced in the process. ”

Will have later a look at your link, short in time hope you are doing well.

Greating from the old world.
As stated previously, the neocons and neolibs should both burn in the same section of Hell since they both worship the false idol of money.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171462

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal

Leaked emails show officials tried to obscure fact that Clinton allowed states to keep only a tiny fraction of proceeds from joint fundraising.

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and ISAAC ARNSDORF 07/26/16 06:32 AM EDT

lede__hillary_clinton_10_gty_1160.jpg

The Hillary Victory Fund still had $42 million in the bank at the end of June, and it seems likely that more money will be moved to the state parties in the coming months. | Getty

Facebook

Twitter

Google +

Email

Comment

Print

MOST READ

The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics

Be afraid: The Clinton-Trump general election begins

Chuck Schumer’s audacious prediction

Trump team launches post-convention assault against Clinton

How Clinton quelled an insurgency

Hillary’s Acceptance Speech Was True To Her—And That’s the Bad News

5 takeaways from Clinton’s biggest speech yet

Grim economy report plays into Trump’s hands

Trump pushes video of Bill Clinton dozing during wife’s speech

Insiders: Hillary’s speech was a winner

POLITICO MAGAZINE

Rudy Giuliani Cory Booker

The Two Speeches That Explain American Politics Right Now

By MICHAEL GRUNWALD

160729_ioffe_dncrussians_getty.jpg

The Russians at the DNC

By JULIA IOFFE

160728-mag-hillary-clinton-msm-1160.jpg

Hillary’s Acceptance Speech Was True To Her—And That’s the Bad News

By JEFF GREENFIELD

Glass ceiling hillary

How Cracked Is That Glass Ceiling, Really?

By JUDITH WARNER

PHILADELPHIA — Leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.

But during the three-month period when the DNC was working to spin the situation, state parties kept less than one half of one percent of the $82 million raised through the arrangement — validating concerns raised by campaign finance watchdogs, state party allies and Bernie Sanders supporters.

The arrangement, called the Hillary Victory Fund, allowed the Clinton campaign to seek contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John. That’s resulted in criticism for Clinton, who has made opposition to big money in politics a key plank in her campaign platform.

Clinton’s allies have responded publicly by arguing that the fund is raising big money to boost down-ballot Democratic candidates by helping the 40 state parties that are now participating in the fund.

But privately, officials at the DNC and on Clinton’s campaign worked to parry questions raised by reporters, as well as Sanders’ since-aborted campaign, about the distribution of the money, according to a cache of hacked emails made public late last week by WikiLeaks.

The emails, released the day before the opening of the Democratic National Convention here, exposed DNC staffers seemingly undermining Sanders’ insurgent campaign against Clinton. The leak hampered the convention’s mission of uniting the party by convincing fervent Sanders supporters to get behind Clinton. And the controversy forced the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a close Clinton ally accused by Sanders backers of using the party apparatus to undermine them.

160725_bernie_lede_ap_1160.jpg

2016

Democrats pull convention back from the brink

By KYLE CHENEY

The emails show the officials agreeing to withhold information from reporters about the Hillary Victory Fund’s allocation formula, working to align their stories about when — or if — the DNC had begun funding coordinated campaign committees with the states. They also show one official blaming Sanders for putting the DNC between “a real rock vs hard place” by forcing “a fight in the media with the party bosses over big money fundraising.”

The DNC’s deputy communications director Eric Walker in late April emailed a group of top officials asserting that the party shouldn’t “discuss funding allocations in the press for the RNC to see what we’re doing.” His boss Luis Miranda responded “There’s been no coverage that we’ve found, which is what we wanted.”

Miranda argued in the emails that the committee should try to shape any coverage by claiming that “while the funds are going to the DNC right now to build tools and capacity for the general election, there will be a point when the funds stay in the states to fund coordinated campaigns that are now beginning to get organized.” But in a subsequent email in early May he admitted he wasn’t sure if the coordinated campaigns with the state parties were already getting started “or does it start later in the summer?”

Wasserman Schultz responded: “It starts now.”

But a POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that very little money from the victory fund went to the states after that point.

Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which — 44 percent — has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee — or only 0.56 percent.

Officials from the DNC and the Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about why so little of the cash raised by the fund has gone to — and remained with — the participating state parties. But they have previously argued that, even when state parties aren’t receiving cash transfers, they are benefiting from the political infrastructure paid for by money raised by the fund.

The fund represents one of the most ambitious hard-dollar fundraising efforts in modern presidential politics. It was made possible by a 2014 Supreme Court decision in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that struck down aggregate limits on total giving to federal campaigns. They had capped donations to joint fundraising committees to $123,200 per person per year.

new_sanders_Main_gty.jpg

Sanders: ‘Clinton must become the next president’

By KATIE GLUECK

Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committee, theoretically could accept checks as large as $436,100 — based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton’s campaign.

Clinton’s GOP rival Donald Trump started a joint committee called Trump Victory with the Republican National Committee and 11 state parties. By including various sub-funds within the RNC, it can accept donations as large as $449,400. But Trump has not shown an ability to raise big checks, and Trump Victory and another Trump joint committee had raised only $32.4 million combined through the end of last month, FEC filings show.

The Hillary Victory Fund still had $42 million in the bank at the end of June, and it seems likely that more money will be moved to the state parties in the coming months. Typically, though, national parties steer disproportionate resources to the handful of states that are legitimately competitive in presidential years, often leaving the party committees in other states grumbling.

But what happens to the cash in the Hillary Victory Fund after its initial distribution is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Clinton campaign’s chief operating officer, Beth Jones, who serves as the treasurer of the victory fund.

FEC filings show that, since the inception of the Hillary Victory Fund, participating state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash — $6.9 million — was transferred to the DNC.

The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn’t pass any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement. But those deposits were token by comparison: each state received $10,000, compared with transfers that were passed on to the DNC as large as $300,000, FEC records show.

Beyond the transfers, much of the fund’s $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.

The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for “salary and overhead expenses” to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive — both of which also serve the Clinton campaign — for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.

Campaign finance watchdogs and the Sanders campaign had argued that the arrangement represented a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on skewing the process to help Clinton defeat Sanders, and then win the White House.

And some participating state party officials and their allies grumble privately that Clinton is merely using the state parties to subsidize her own operation, contending that her allies overstate the fund’s support for their parties.

The fund is a bad deal for state parties, said one operative who works with state party committees. State party officials have been buzzing about the WikiLeak emails, said the operative, arguing they show that “the extent to which the game has been rigged goes much deeper at the DNC than what many of us expected.”

In April, when POLITICO began asking state parties about why they weren’t keeping the money being transferred to them from the fund, officials looped the DNC and urged the states to stonewall, according to the leaked emails.

“There is no reason to share that level of strategic information with a reporter,” wrote Ohio Democratic Party communications director Kirstin Alvanitakis.

Michelle Obama praises Clinton for not getting ‘angry’ when she lost in 2008

Michelle Obama: ‘This right now is the greatest country on Earth’

By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL

But the emails show that officials and lawyers at the DNC and the Clinton campaign became frantic after POLITICO’s May 2 story, which led to substantial follow-up coverage that put the Clinton campaign and the DNC on the defensive. It led the Sanders campaign to accuse the Clinton campaign of “money laundering” and prompted Politifact to downgrade its rating — from “mostly true” to “half true” — of the claim that the bulk of the money collected by the victory fund would go to down-ballot Democrats.

“The DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful to the Democratic party,” Marc Elias, an attorney who advises the DNC and the Clinton campaign, wrote in an email to DNC officials.

CEO Amy Dacey responded “I do think there is too much of this narrative out there — I also worry since they are emailing to their list (which has overlap with ours!)”

In another email, Miranda, the communications director, suggested that the campaign tell other journalists seeking to follow POLITICO’s story that “Politico got it wrong.” But the rest of his email failed to indicate any errors in POLITICO’s story, nor did the DNC or the Clinton campaign seek a correction.

Miranda did not respond to a request for comment.
I bet Putin has something to do with it, we should ask CNN for more information…

Look at the topics here in the offtopic, the brainwashing part of the US msm has worked perfectly.
Yes- hence why I usually show up here only once a week!

What was this that you mentioned in the other thread about freedom fries- never heard that one before. It does seem bizarre!
Was sometimes infront of the Iraqinvasion, the world was split into the willings and the enemy and the big mediaoutlets of the land of the free played well trained the drums of war. Majority of citizens were frightened and held meetings to sing the national anthem and to feel strong together in patriotism supported with Foxnews newest stinking mushroomcloud. But it took BushII more time then expected to get into the Iraq, so there was the real menace that the fearlevel would fall. One magician came up with the idea of the freedom fries, which seemed perfect to use in that context. So the medialords and their lemmings inspired the folk to feel deep anger against those French people, inclusive French wine. Maybe there was even an “Freedom fries” official talkingpointlist for the msm, like in the case of Snowden or advanced interrogation technics or maybe soon spoiler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

For me that is dangerous “journalism “ and using the word freedom fries in that context was bizarre, like it feels bizarre to respond to “No more wars” with “USA””USA”
Thanks. I see that Assange was on CNN of all places and talking about the leaks coming from within the Democratic Party- not from Russia. He also talked about a new set of leaks- do you know what this is about? Curiously enough, the guy who was accused of giving the leaks from within the party was mysteriously murdered two weeks ago.
No haven´t heard what is coming next.
I think it might be what I wrote about earlier tonight, that the Clinton Foundation has been taking money from people on the no-fly list.
The no fly list is an big and dangerous joke, I am sure you have heard from Senator Kennedy who was also on that list for a while. The system is rigged and ClintonII is part of the problem and no solution. Let´s see how the corporate media will cover up the next leak, will it be again the communist under the bed?
The big problem was the person in question who contributed to the Clinton Fund was a Nigerian thug who committed widespread crimes in that country, but as soon as it was learned he contributed to the Clinton Fund he was allowed to go wherever he wanted- a “normal” person on that list would have gone through some hellish treatment, whether they deserved to be on that list or not.
Wonder if Senator Kennedy also had to pay ClintonII to get from the no fly list?

Speaking of communism I think you would really like Greenwald’s article in the Intercept where he talked about how there is a long history for blaming Russia for leaks.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/

A FREQUENT WEAPON FOR DEMOCRATS in the 2016 election is to publicly malign those they regard as critics and adversaries as Russia sympathizers, Putin stooges, or outright agents of the Kremlin. To put it mildly, this is not a new tactic in U.S. political discourse, and it’s worth placing it in historical context. That’s particularly true given how many people have now been targeted with this attack.

Strongly insinuating that the GOP nominee, Donald Trump, has nefarious, possibly treasonous allegiances to Moscow has migrated from Clinton-loyal pundits into the principal theme of the Clinton campaign itself. “The depth of Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin is revealing itself by the day,” her website announced yesterday, and vital “questions” must be answered “about Trump’s cozy relationship with Russia.” The Clinton campaign this weekend released a 1-minute video that, over and over, insinuates Trump’s disloyalty in the form of “questions” – complete with menacing pictures of Red Square. Democrats cheered wildly, and really have not stopped cheering, ever since the ex-Acting CIA Director (who, undisclosed by the NYT, now works for a Clinton operative) went to The New York Times to claim “that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
Yes have read it, Greenwald is spot on and it´s absurd that big parts of the US public are still falling for the same old boring fearmongering. You remember that we spoke about “No more wars” vs “USA, USA”, emptywheel had also a shorty about it worth to read I think. https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/08/03/what-price-victory/
It won’t let me see the story I am getting this error:

ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCHA secure connection cannot be established because this site uses an unsupported protocol.
Hm, I have no problem with the link? However:

Published August 3, 2016 | By emptywheel

Virtually the entire political class has now united to defeat Donald Trump, with Morning Joe today staging a Michael Hayden appearance that served largely to allow Scarborough to tell the story of Trump asking three times in a foreign policy briefing why the US couldn’t use its nukes. As Dan Drezner pointed out on Twitter, Scarborough says the event happened months ago — when the primary was still going on — but has just now staged its telling.

Beating Donald Trump is important. He’s a racist who aims to win by promising white working class people they can resume persecuting people of color again, and he is dangerously inconsistent. That said, he does want to spend lots on infrastructure and protect workers from the ravages of globalization, something often forgotten in depictions of him as entirely policy free.

But the transpartisan obsession with beating Trump has largely applauded two developments that, for liberals, for democrats, for those who believe in peace, for progressives, should be a worry.

First, the Neocon establishment has come out in enthusiastic support for Clinton, with ideologue Eliot Cohen orchestrating serial efforts (one that even includes John Yoo!!) to oppose Trump. They point to Trump’s erratic nature and more recently the theories of Putin’s influence. They do so even in the face of a report that Paul Manafort, through whom any Putin influence would be managed, is checking out.

I exchanged messages Tuesday evening with a longtime ally of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, whom I asked about who was calling the shots in the campaign. The response indicated that Manafort, a veteran of Republican politics brought in this spring for the transition from primaries to the general election, has lost control over his candidate.

“Manafort not challenging (Trump) anymore,” Manafort’s ally wrote. “Mailing it in. Staff suicidal.”
I’m getting whiplash following the Manchurian Trump stories. Maybe the ones suggesting Bill Clinton was behind the Trump run are the true ones after all.

And even while the focus has been on Russia’s alleged influence with Trump, there has been no focus on Hillary’s unquestioning support of Saudi Arabia (the country that had ties to 9/11) and Israel. Or on Hillary’s equally troubling policy proposals, such as starting a No Fly Zone over Russian planes. As Will Bunch noted in a great column, Democrats have become the party that shuns people who chant No More War.
So now the only question is why is Trump allowing himself to be used as a puppet to get Clinton elected. There must be something in it for him. I’m sure there is if the Clintons regain power. Saudi Arabia has been allowed to fly under the radar since money matters more than lives, of course.

The delegates didn’t hear from an Andrew Bacevich or the equivalent of James Madison, but they did get Panetta, who — as noted in this excellent analysis —has supported expanded war powers for the White House, failed to push for real accountability on Bush-era torture, and once suggested that “a 30-year war” will be needed against terrorism. Was it really rude for some of the DNC delegates to chant “no more war!” during Panetta’s speech? Or were some citizens desperately trying to be heard with a different point of view, in a nation so eager to squelch any public debate?

It should be a scandal that the United States drops bombs from flying death robots or our obscenely expensive military jets over countries like Libya, swaths of Africa, or Syria based only on a 15-year-old congressional resolution passed after an attack carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians loyal to a terrorist group that barely exists in 2016. But we’re afraid of any frank discussion of that, or the recent admission by the Obama administration that U.S. military actions in nations with which we’re not technically at war have killed 116 innocent civilians. That’s a number that experts find ridiculously low, by the way, and doesn’t as include asmany as 85 Syrian civilians who were killed in late July by a U.S. airstrike — a story that was all but ignored in the media. Even if you strongly believe that such collateral damage is necessary to defeat international terrorism, chanting “USA! USA!” to support militarism is both jingoistic and crudely callous toward the dead.
Not only has Hillary gotten the support of the people who brought us into Iraq based on a lie (she told her own little stretchers to get us into Libya), but we’re now drowning out any voice for peace.

Then there’s the parade of heinous billionaires Hillary has rolled out, with Mark Cuban, Mike Bloomberg, and now Meg Whitman. NYT’s coverage of Whitman’s announcement emphasizes that Hillary has been courting Republican billionaires since before she finalized the nomination and that Hillary’s pick of the pro-TPP pro-Wall Street Tim Kaine is what sealed the deal for Whitman.
The ironic thing is that the Democrats and Republicans really are two sides of the same coin (literally)- since they gravitate towards the same donors. The Clintons have taken rather large donations from the people who went after Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas debacle too.

Whitman, who said she would remain a Republican, brings with her a considerable network of contributors, some of whom she said were open to giving to Mrs. Clinton. She said she was willing to campaign for Mrs. Clinton, said she would do her best to gather checks for her campaign and indicated she would personally give to both Mrs. Clinton and her affiliated “super PACs.” An aide to Ms. Whitman said she would personally give at least an amount in the “mid-six figures” to the Clinton effort.

While Democrats openly appealed at their convention last week to Republicans uneasy with Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her top supporters have been making a similar cross-party pitch in private since before the Democratic nomination fight even came to its conclusion.

[snip]

She said she had told Mrs. Clinton that she wanted to see the two parties’ conventions and assess the running mates that each nominee chose before making her decision. When Mrs. Clinton selected Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a consensus-oriented figure, “that was a positive for me,” Ms. Whitman said.
Whitman’s nod to Kaine is of particular concern to me, as Democrats downplayed his anti-choice and pro-business policies, at least in public, until after the convention. Now, if anything happens to Hillary (who has some dangerously unhinged enemies), we’ll basically have a moderate Republican running the country.

It’s not just that Hillary has secretly been courting oligarchs since before she cemented the nomination. It’s that her post-convention politicking has focused on it, as if the approval of oligarchs is what it will take to win in midwest swing states.

The guy who will likely become Majority Leader is even more aggressively pursuing typical Republican voters (though this view — admittedly filtered through the potentially inaccurate National Review — has some huge logical contradictions, not to mention an odd idea of what it would take for Democrats to continue to win Illinois).
The funny thing is one of the criticisms Clinton used against Putin was that he jails oligarchs. Not that Putin is anything good, but that particular “criticism” should be considered a compliment.

“No guarantees, there never are, but the odds are more like than not that we will take back the Senate,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said at a forum sponsored by the Washington Post Thursday afternoon. Schumer will be the next majority or minority leader of the Senate Democrats, depending upon how November unfolds. He suggested that the electorate’s sense of economic gloom was actually working to his party’s advantage: “The electorate is moving in a more Democratic direction. When middle class incomes decline, people tend to move in a more progressive direction.”

Schumer’s optimism is driven more by national demographics than by the specific traits of his candidates. He contends that Millennials, or voters aged 18 to 35, will be the largest age group voting in this year’s electorate, even if they don’t turn out in massive numbers.

“The number one factor in whether we retake the Senate is whether Hillary Clinton does well, and I think she’s going to do really well,” Schumer says of his former fellow New York senator. He notes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged Senate Republicans in difficult races to localize their elections, rather than get too tied to Trump’s positions and comments and scoffs, “Sorry, Mitch, this is a national election if there ever was one.”

At least publicly, Schumer has no worries about his party’s dwindling fortunes among working-class white voters. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Democrats, it appears, want to become the party of the Republican soccer mom, which may work well with the bellicose warmongering, but which seems to view economic malaise as an opportunity rather than a problem.

So yeah, by all means, let’s beat the orange crazy man.

But let’s also be cognizant of the more politically palatable craziness that gets embraced in the process. ”

Will have later a look at your link, short in time hope you are doing well.

Greating from the old world.
As stated previously, the neocons and neolibs should both burn in the same section of Hell since they both worship the false idol of money. It’s way too easy to beat the Orange Agent, I would rather pull on his strings to find out who the puppeteers that control him are

Greetings from the crazy “new” world!

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal

Leaked emails show officials tried to obscure fact that Clinton allowed states to keep only a tiny fraction of proceeds from joint fundraising.

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and ISAAC ARNSDORF 07/26/16 06:32 AM EDT

lede__hillary_clinton_10_gty_1160.jpg

The Hillary Victory Fund still had $42 million in the bank at the end of June, and it seems likely that more money will be moved to the state parties in the coming months. | Getty

Facebook

Twitter

Google +

Email

Comment

Print

MOST READ

The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics

Be afraid: The Clinton-Trump general election begins

Chuck Schumer’s audacious prediction

Trump team launches post-convention assault against Clinton

How Clinton quelled an insurgency

Hillary’s Acceptance Speech Was True To Her—And That’s the Bad News

5 takeaways from Clinton’s biggest speech yet

Grim economy report plays into Trump’s hands

Trump pushes video of Bill Clinton dozing during wife’s speech

Insiders: Hillary’s speech was a winner

POLITICO MAGAZINE

Rudy Giuliani Cory Booker

The Two Speeches That Explain American Politics Right Now

By MICHAEL GRUNWALD

160729_ioffe_dncrussians_getty.jpg

The Russians at the DNC

By JULIA IOFFE

160728-mag-hillary-clinton-msm-1160.jpg

Hillary’s Acceptance Speech Was True To Her—And That’s the Bad News

By JEFF GREENFIELD

Glass ceiling hillary

How Cracked Is That Glass Ceiling, Really?

By JUDITH WARNER

PHILADELPHIA — Leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.

But during the three-month period when the DNC was working to spin the situation, state parties kept less than one half of one percent of the $82 million raised through the arrangement — validating concerns raised by campaign finance watchdogs, state party allies and Bernie Sanders supporters.

The arrangement, called the Hillary Victory Fund, allowed the Clinton campaign to seek contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John. That’s resulted in criticism for Clinton, who has made opposition to big money in politics a key plank in her campaign platform.

Clinton’s allies have responded publicly by arguing that the fund is raising big money to boost down-ballot Democratic candidates by helping the 40 state parties that are now participating in the fund.

But privately, officials at the DNC and on Clinton’s campaign worked to parry questions raised by reporters, as well as Sanders’ since-aborted campaign, about the distribution of the money, according to a cache of hacked emails made public late last week by WikiLeaks.

The emails, released the day before the opening of the Democratic National Convention here, exposed DNC staffers seemingly undermining Sanders’ insurgent campaign against Clinton. The leak hampered the convention’s mission of uniting the party by convincing fervent Sanders supporters to get behind Clinton. And the controversy forced the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a close Clinton ally accused by Sanders backers of using the party apparatus to undermine them.

160725_bernie_lede_ap_1160.jpg

2016

Democrats pull convention back from the brink

By KYLE CHENEY

The emails show the officials agreeing to withhold information from reporters about the Hillary Victory Fund’s allocation formula, working to align their stories about when — or if — the DNC had begun funding coordinated campaign committees with the states. They also show one official blaming Sanders for putting the DNC between “a real rock vs hard place” by forcing “a fight in the media with the party bosses over big money fundraising.”

The DNC’s deputy communications director Eric Walker in late April emailed a group of top officials asserting that the party shouldn’t “discuss funding allocations in the press for the RNC to see what we’re doing.” His boss Luis Miranda responded “There’s been no coverage that we’ve found, which is what we wanted.”

Miranda argued in the emails that the committee should try to shape any coverage by claiming that “while the funds are going to the DNC right now to build tools and capacity for the general election, there will be a point when the funds stay in the states to fund coordinated campaigns that are now beginning to get organized.” But in a subsequent email in early May he admitted he wasn’t sure if the coordinated campaigns with the state parties were already getting started “or does it start later in the summer?”

Wasserman Schultz responded: “It starts now.”

But a POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that very little money from the victory fund went to the states after that point.

Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which — 44 percent — has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee — or only 0.56 percent.

Officials from the DNC and the Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about why so little of the cash raised by the fund has gone to — and remained with — the participating state parties. But they have previously argued that, even when state parties aren’t receiving cash transfers, they are benefiting from the political infrastructure paid for by money raised by the fund.

The fund represents one of the most ambitious hard-dollar fundraising efforts in modern presidential politics. It was made possible by a 2014 Supreme Court decision in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that struck down aggregate limits on total giving to federal campaigns. They had capped donations to joint fundraising committees to $123,200 per person per year.

new_sanders_Main_gty.jpg

Sanders: ‘Clinton must become the next president’

By KATIE GLUECK

Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committee, theoretically could accept checks as large as $436,100 — based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton’s campaign.

Clinton’s GOP rival Donald Trump started a joint committee called Trump Victory with the Republican National Committee and 11 state parties. By including various sub-funds within the RNC, it can accept donations as large as $449,400. But Trump has not shown an ability to raise big checks, and Trump Victory and another Trump joint committee had raised only $32.4 million combined through the end of last month, FEC filings show.

The Hillary Victory Fund still had $42 million in the bank at the end of June, and it seems likely that more money will be moved to the state parties in the coming months. Typically, though, national parties steer disproportionate resources to the handful of states that are legitimately competitive in presidential years, often leaving the party committees in other states grumbling.

But what happens to the cash in the Hillary Victory Fund after its initial distribution is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Clinton campaign’s chief operating officer, Beth Jones, who serves as the treasurer of the victory fund.

FEC filings show that, since the inception of the Hillary Victory Fund, participating state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash — $6.9 million — was transferred to the DNC.

The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn’t pass any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement. But those deposits were token by comparison: each state received $10,000, compared with transfers that were passed on to the DNC as large as $300,000, FEC records show.

Beyond the transfers, much of the fund’s $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.

The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for “salary and overhead expenses” to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive — both of which also serve the Clinton campaign — for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.

Campaign finance watchdogs and the Sanders campaign had argued that the arrangement represented a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on skewing the process to help Clinton defeat Sanders, and then win the White House.

And some participating state party officials and their allies grumble privately that Clinton is merely using the state parties to subsidize her own operation, contending that her allies overstate the fund’s support for their parties.

The fund is a bad deal for state parties, said one operative who works with state party committees. State party officials have been buzzing about the WikiLeak emails, said the operative, arguing they show that “the extent to which the game has been rigged goes much deeper at the DNC than what many of us expected.”

In April, when POLITICO began asking state parties about why they weren’t keeping the money being transferred to them from the fund, officials looped the DNC and urged the states to stonewall, according to the leaked emails.

“There is no reason to share that level of strategic information with a reporter,” wrote Ohio Democratic Party communications director Kirstin Alvanitakis.

Michelle Obama praises Clinton for not getting ‘angry’ when she lost in 2008

Michelle Obama: ‘This right now is the greatest country on Earth’

By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL

But the emails show that officials and lawyers at the DNC and the Clinton campaign became frantic after POLITICO’s May 2 story, which led to substantial follow-up coverage that put the Clinton campaign and the DNC on the defensive. It led the Sanders campaign to accuse the Clinton campaign of “money laundering” and prompted Politifact to downgrade its rating — from “mostly true” to “half true” — of the claim that the bulk of the money collected by the victory fund would go to down-ballot Democrats.

“The DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful to the Democratic party,” Marc Elias, an attorney who advises the DNC and the Clinton campaign, wrote in an email to DNC officials.

CEO Amy Dacey responded “I do think there is too much of this narrative out there — I also worry since they are emailing to their list (which has overlap with ours!)”

In another email, Miranda, the communications director, suggested that the campaign tell other journalists seeking to follow POLITICO’s story that “Politico got it wrong.” But the rest of his email failed to indicate any errors in POLITICO’s story, nor did the DNC or the Clinton campaign seek a correction.

Miranda did not respond to a request for comment.
I bet Putin has something to do with it, we should ask CNN for more information…

Look at the topics here in the offtopic, the brainwashing part of the US msm has worked perfectly.
Yes- hence why I usually show up here only once a week!

What was this that you mentioned in the other thread about freedom fries- never heard that one before. It does seem bizarre!
Was sometimes infront of the Iraqinvasion, the world was split into the willings and the enemy and the big mediaoutlets of the land of the free played well trained the drums of war. Majority of citizens were frightened and held meetings to sing the national anthem and to feel strong together in patriotism supported with Foxnews newest stinking mushroomcloud. But it took BushII more time then expected to get into the Iraq, so there was the real menace that the fearlevel would fall. One magician came up with the idea of the freedom fries, which seemed perfect to use in that context. So the medialords and their lemmings inspired the folk to feel deep anger against those French people, inclusive French wine. Maybe there was even an “Freedom fries” official talkingpointlist for the msm, like in the case of Snowden or advanced interrogation technics or maybe soon spoiler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

For me that is dangerous “journalism “ and using the word freedom fries in that context was bizarre, like it feels bizarre to respond to “No more wars” with “USA””USA”
Thanks. I see that Assange was on CNN of all places and talking about the leaks coming from within the Democratic Party- not from Russia. He also talked about a new set of leaks- do you know what this is about? Curiously enough, the guy who was accused of giving the leaks from within the party was mysteriously murdered two weeks ago.
No haven´t heard what is coming next.
I think it might be what I wrote about earlier tonight, that the Clinton Foundation has been taking money from people on the no-fly list.
The no fly list is an big and dangerous joke, I am sure you have heard from Senator Kennedy who was also on that list for a while. The system is rigged and ClintonII is part of the problem and no solution. Let´s see how the corporate media will cover up the next leak, will it be again the communist under the bed?
The big problem was the person in question who contributed to the Clinton Fund was a Nigerian thug who committed widespread crimes in that country, but as soon as it was learned he contributed to the Clinton Fund he was allowed to go wherever he wanted- a “normal” person on that list would have gone through some hellish treatment, whether they deserved to be on that list or not.
Wonder if Senator Kennedy also had to pay ClintonII to get from the no fly list?

Speaking of communism I think you would really like Greenwald’s article in the Intercept where he talked about how there is a long history for blaming Russia for leaks.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/

A FREQUENT WEAPON FOR DEMOCRATS in the 2016 election is to publicly malign those they regard as critics and adversaries as Russia sympathizers, Putin stooges, or outright agents of the Kremlin. To put it mildly, this is not a new tactic in U.S. political discourse, and it’s worth placing it in historical context. That’s particularly true given how many people have now been targeted with this attack.

Strongly insinuating that the GOP nominee, Donald Trump, has nefarious, possibly treasonous allegiances to Moscow has migrated from Clinton-loyal pundits into the principal theme of the Clinton campaign itself. “The depth of Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin is revealing itself by the day,” her website announced yesterday, and vital “questions” must be answered “about Trump’s cozy relationship with Russia.” The Clinton campaign this weekend released a 1-minute video that, over and over, insinuates Trump’s disloyalty in the form of “questions” – complete with menacing pictures of Red Square. Democrats cheered wildly, and really have not stopped cheering, ever since the ex-Acting CIA Director (who, undisclosed by the NYT, now works for a Clinton operative) went to The New York Times to claim “that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
Yes have read it, Greenwald is spot on and it´s absurd that big parts of the US public are still falling for the same old boring fearmongering. You remember that we spoke about “No more wars” vs “USA, USA”, emptywheel had also a shorty about it worth to read I think. https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/08/03/what-price-victory/
It won’t let me see the story I am getting this error:

ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCHA secure connection cannot be established because this site uses an unsupported protocol.
Hm, I have no problem with the link? However:

Published August 3, 2016 | By emptywheel

Virtually the entire political class has now united to defeat Donald Trump, with Morning Joe today staging a Michael Hayden appearance that served largely to allow Scarborough to tell the story of Trump asking three times in a foreign policy briefing why the US couldn’t use its nukes. As Dan Drezner pointed out on Twitter, Scarborough says the event happened months ago — when the primary was still going on — but has just now staged its telling.

Beating Donald Trump is important. He’s a racist who aims to win by promising white working class people they can resume persecuting people of color again, and he is dangerously inconsistent. That said, he does want to spend lots on infrastructure and protect workers from the ravages of globalization, something often forgotten in depictions of him as entirely policy free.

But the transpartisan obsession with beating Trump has largely applauded two developments that, for liberals, for democrats, for those who believe in peace, for progressives, should be a worry.

First, the Neocon establishment has come out in enthusiastic support for Clinton, with ideologue Eliot Cohen orchestrating serial efforts (one that even includes John Yoo!!) to oppose Trump. They point to Trump’s erratic nature and more recently the theories of Putin’s influence. They do so even in the face of a report that Paul Manafort, through whom any Putin influence would be managed, is checking out.

I exchanged messages Tuesday evening with a longtime ally of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, whom I asked about who was calling the shots in the campaign. The response indicated that Manafort, a veteran of Republican politics brought in this spring for the transition from primaries to the general election, has lost control over his candidate.

“Manafort not challenging (Trump) anymore,” Manafort’s ally wrote. “Mailing it in. Staff suicidal.”
I’m getting whiplash following the Manchurian Trump stories. Maybe the ones suggesting Bill Clinton was behind the Trump run are the true ones after all.

And even while the focus has been on Russia’s alleged influence with Trump, there has been no focus on Hillary’s unquestioning support of Saudi Arabia (the country that had ties to 9/11) and Israel. Or on Hillary’s equally troubling policy proposals, such as starting a No Fly Zone over Russian planes. As Will Bunch noted in a great column, Democrats have become the party that shuns people who chant No More War.
So now the only question is why is Trump allowing himself to be used as a puppet to get Clinton elected. There must be something in it for him. I’m sure there is if the Clintons regain power. Saudi Arabia has been allowed to fly under the radar since money matters more than lives, of course.

The delegates didn’t hear from an Andrew Bacevich or the equivalent of James Madison, but they did get Panetta, who — as noted in this excellent analysis —has supported expanded war powers for the White House, failed to push for real accountability on Bush-era torture, and once suggested that “a 30-year war” will be needed against terrorism. Was it really rude for some of the DNC delegates to chant “no more war!” during Panetta’s speech? Or were some citizens desperately trying to be heard with a different point of view, in a nation so eager to squelch any public debate?

It should be a scandal that the United States drops bombs from flying death robots or our obscenely expensive military jets over countries like Libya, swaths of Africa, or Syria based only on a 15-year-old congressional resolution passed after an attack carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians loyal to a terrorist group that barely exists in 2016. But we’re afraid of any frank discussion of that, or the recent admission by the Obama administration that U.S. military actions in nations with which we’re not technically at war have killed 116 innocent civilians. That’s a number that experts find ridiculously low, by the way, and doesn’t as include asmany as 85 Syrian civilians who were killed in late July by a U.S. airstrike — a story that was all but ignored in the media. Even if you strongly believe that such collateral damage is necessary to defeat international terrorism, chanting “USA! USA!” to support militarism is both jingoistic and crudely callous toward the dead.
Not only has Hillary gotten the support of the people who brought us into Iraq based on a lie (she told her own little stretchers to get us into Libya), but we’re now drowning out any voice for peace.

Then there’s the parade of heinous billionaires Hillary has rolled out, with Mark Cuban, Mike Bloomberg, and now Meg Whitman. NYT’s coverage of Whitman’s announcement emphasizes that Hillary has been courting Republican billionaires since before she finalized the nomination and that Hillary’s pick of the pro-TPP pro-Wall Street Tim Kaine is what sealed the deal for Whitman.
The ironic thing is that the Democrats and Republicans really are two sides of the same coin (literally)- since they gravitate towards the same donors. The Clintons have taken rather large donations from the people who went after Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas debacle too.

Whitman, who said she would remain a Republican, brings with her a considerable network of contributors, some of whom she said were open to giving to Mrs. Clinton. She said she was willing to campaign for Mrs. Clinton, said she would do her best to gather checks for her campaign and indicated she would personally give to both Mrs. Clinton and her affiliated “super PACs.” An aide to Ms. Whitman said she would personally give at least an amount in the “mid-six figures” to the Clinton effort.

While Democrats openly appealed at their convention last week to Republicans uneasy with Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her top supporters have been making a similar cross-party pitch in private since before the Democratic nomination fight even came to its conclusion.

[snip]

She said she had told Mrs. Clinton that she wanted to see the two parties’ conventions and assess the running mates that each nominee chose before making her decision. When Mrs. Clinton selected Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a consensus-oriented figure, “that was a positive for me,” Ms. Whitman said.
Whitman’s nod to Kaine is of particular concern to me, as Democrats downplayed his anti-choice and pro-business policies, at least in public, until after the convention. Now, if anything happens to Hillary (who has some dangerously unhinged enemies), we’ll basically have a moderate Republican running the country.

It’s not just that Hillary has secretly been courting oligarchs since before she cemented the nomination. It’s that her post-convention politicking has focused on it, as if the approval of oligarchs is what it will take to win in midwest swing states.

The guy who will likely become Majority Leader is even more aggressively pursuing typical Republican voters (though this view — admittedly filtered through the potentially inaccurate National Review — has some huge logical contradictions, not to mention an odd idea of what it would take for Democrats to continue to win Illinois).
The funny thing is one of the criticisms Clinton used against Putin was that he jails oligarchs. Not that Putin is anything good, but that particular “criticism” should be considered a compliment.

“No guarantees, there never are, but the odds are more like than not that we will take back the Senate,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said at a forum sponsored by the Washington Post Thursday afternoon. Schumer will be the next majority or minority leader of the Senate Democrats, depending upon how November unfolds. He suggested that the electorate’s sense of economic gloom was actually working to his party’s advantage: “The electorate is moving in a more Democratic direction. When middle class incomes decline, people tend to move in a more progressive direction.”

Schumer’s optimism is driven more by national demographics than by the specific traits of his candidates. He contends that Millennials, or voters aged 18 to 35, will be the largest age group voting in this year’s electorate, even if they don’t turn out in massive numbers.

“The number one factor in whether we retake the Senate is whether Hillary Clinton does well, and I think she’s going to do really well,” Schumer says of his former fellow New York senator. He notes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged Senate Republicans in difficult races to localize their elections, rather than get too tied to Trump’s positions and comments and scoffs, “Sorry, Mitch, this is a national election if there ever was one.”

At least publicly, Schumer has no worries about his party’s dwindling fortunes among working-class white voters. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Democrats, it appears, want to become the party of the Republican soccer mom, which may work well with the bellicose warmongering, but which seems to view economic malaise as an opportunity rather than a problem.

So yeah, by all means, let’s beat the orange crazy man.

But let’s also be cognizant of the more politically palatable craziness that gets embraced in the process. ”

Will have later a look at your link, short in time hope you are doing well.

Greating from the old world.
As stated previously, the neocons and neolibs should both burn in the same section of Hell since they both worship the false idol of money. It’s way too easy to beat the Orange Agent, I would rather pull on his strings to find out who the puppeteers that control him are

Greetings from the crazy “new” world!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

Watch Delegates Chant ‘No More War’ During Leon Panetta’s Speech

Watch Delegates Chant ‘No More War’ During Leon Panetta’s Speech

https://t.co/adk5tNrlWZ

https://t.co/adk5tNrlWZ

https://thinkprogress.org/protesters-explain-why-they-chanted-no-more-war-at-former-cia-director-ed5b4982e15d#.r1nh3ki75

Protesters Explain Why They Chanted ‘No More War’ At Former CIA Director

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaks during the third day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. CREDIT: AP PHOTO/J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE
Former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to the Democratic National Convention Wednesday night, warning against the danger of putting Republican nominee Donald Trump in the position of commander-in-chief facing a dangerous world. But he was quickly drowned out by protesters chanting “No more wars!” and “Lies!”
Panetta, who has previously suggested that the fight against Islamic extremists will require a “30-year war,” was forced to pause repeatedly and wait for the chants to subside.
“We cannot afford an erratic finger on our nuclear weapons,” he said amid the chants. “This is no time to roll the dice and to gamble with America’s national security or with the American Dream.”

The former security official was part of the opening line-up for President Barack Obama, who Panetta has blamed in his memoir for the rise of ISIS and the wars in Syria and Iraq.
Panetta has come under criticism in the past for his defense of broad executive war powers that were vastly expanded after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, allowing the president to bypass Congress when deciding to go to war.
He also conducted a secret internal investigation of the CIA’s torture regimes, but argued against the declassification of torture documents in his memoir. “It seemed wrong to me to ask a public servant to take a risk for his country and assure him that it was both legal and approved, then, years later, to suggest that he had done something wrong,” he wrote. He’s more recently called for Congress to beef up counter-terrorism and surveillance efforts.
Protesters said they targeted Panetta because of his position as the former leader of the military.
“Why do we need to be in perpetual warfare?” Micheal Baca, a 24-year-old Marine Corps veteran from Colorado, asked ThinkProgress.
California delegate Alesa Byers said she chanted because she was put off by Panetta’s message of inevitable war. But, she said, other delegates around her were hostile toward her and the other protesters. “I don’t understand how being pro-peace is anti-Hillary,” she said. “They’re just pissed off that we’re saying something.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), who has repeatedly introduced legislation to end post-9/11 authorizations for more war powers, told ThinkProgress she supported the protesters in her delegation.
“We’ve got to repeal the authorizations that have kept us in perpetual war,” she said, arguing that Congress should have the final say over whether or not to go to war.
“The military option is always on the table, that’s a given,” she said. “We have to look at development, diplomacy. But I think Hillary Clinton really understands we have to have a comprehensive strategy to ensure global peace and security.”
“Everyone has the first amendment right to say what you want to say,” she added. “I’m the one who says ‘no more war.’”

https://thinkprogress.org/@jessicagolds?source=post_header_lockup

View story at Medium.com

https://thinkprogress.org/not-all-heroes-wear-capes-db25e613bf6#.qah5jvtae
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/09/researchers-find-unsafe-levels-of-industrial-chemicals-in-drinking-water-of-6-million-americans/?utm_term=.b58acd969f35

Researchers find unsafe levels of industrial chemicals in drinking water of 6 million Americans
By Brady Dennis August 9

A drinking water well structure at Versluis Park in Plainfield Township, Mich. Utilities serving the area recently reported elevated levels of two potentially toxic industrial chemicals in both raw and treated water. (Garret Ellison/The Grand Rapids Press via AP)
Drinking water supplies serving more than six million Americans contain unsafe levels of a widely used class of industrial chemicals linked to potentially serious health problems, according to a new study from Harvard University researchers.

The chemicals — known as polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs — have been used for decades in a range of industrial and commercial products, including non-stick coatings on pans, food wrappers, water-repellent clothing and firefighting foam. Long-term exposure has been linked to increased risks of kidney cancer, thyroid problems, high cholesterol and hormone disruption, among other issues.

“Virtually all Americans are exposed to these compounds,” said Xindi Hu, the study’s lead author. “They never break down. Once they are released into the environment, they are there.”

As part of the study, which was published Tuesday in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, the researchers examined concentrations of six types of PFAS chemicals in drinking water supplies around the country. The data came from more than 36,000 samples collected by the Environmental Protection Agency between 2013 and 2015.

They also looked at sites where the chemicals are commonly found — industrial plants that use them in manufacturing, military bases and civilian airports where fire-fighting foam is used and wastewater treatment plants.
Using data from the EPA, researchers mapped areas of the country where high levels of polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) have surfaced in drinking water supplies. (Courtesy Xindi Hu)
What they found: 194 of 4,864 water supplies across nearly three dozen states had detectable levels of the chemicals. Sixty-six of those water supplies, serving about six million people, had at least one sample that exceeded the EPA’s recommended safety limit of 70 parts per trillion for two types of chemicals — perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

“It’s a big problem in a lot of communities,” said Richard Clapp, professor emeritus at Boston University’s school of public health. “It’s happening in a lot of places.”

From Decatur, Ala., to Merrimack, N.H., residents have been wrestling with high levels of the potentially harmful chemicals, and public officials have been scrambling to figure out how to prevent them from contaminating drinking water supplies.

The federal government does not currently regulate PFAS chemicals. But they are on the EPA’s list of “unregulated contaminants” that the agency monitors, with the goal of restricting those that most endanger public health. Partly because the rules that it must follow are complicated and contentious, officials have failed to successfully regulate any new contaminant in two decades.

Only once since the 1990s has the EPA come close to imposing a new standard — for perchlorate, a chemical that sometimes occurs naturally but also is found in explosives, road flares and rocket fuel. It has turned up in the drinking water of over 16 million people.

Joel Beauvais, who leads the EPA’s Office of Water, told the Post earlier this year that the system mandated by Congress demands the agency move deliberately. “It’s a rather intensive process to get one of these drinking-water regulations across the finish line,” he said.

Could your drinking water be contaminated? Play Video2:07
A chemical compound that the government classifies as “a likely human carcinogen” has been found in some drinking water in North Carolina and other states across the U.S. But can the EPA do anything about it? (Osman Malik, Whitney Shefte/The Washington Post)
There are reasons for that, Beauvais said at the time. A substance may occur in only a very small number of drinking-water systems or might occur only in extremely low levels. Before the EPA imposes new limitations on the nation’s water utilities, it has to prove that there is a meaningful opportunity to improve public health. “These are very consequential regulations,” Beauvais said. “They are consequential from a health perspective. They are consequential from an economic perspective.”

[In U.S. drinking water, many chemicals are regulated — but many aren’t]

One of the agency’s approaches is to issue health advisories that can prompt state and local officials to take action or at least notify residents about contaminants. In May, it issued advisories for PFOS and PFOA, urging utilities around the country to follow more stringent guidelines than the EPA previously had recommended.

Energy and Environment newsletter
The science and policy of environmental issues.
Sign up
In the wake of that advisory, at least one Alabama community declared its tap water unfit to drink and told residents to avoid it until officials could install a temporary, high-powered filter for the water supply. Some communities in New Hampshire received bottled water while authorities considered ways to address high levels of the contaminants in nearby groundwater. A company in upstate New York agreed to install carbon filters in private homes where high levels of the chemicals had been detected.

Clapp said that as evidence has mounted about the potential health risks posed by PFAS compounds and how ubiquitous they are, few people would argue that they should remain unregulated.

“We’re definitely overdue,” he said. “It’s not a question of whether, but rather at what level should they be regulated.”

Separately on Tuesday, another Harvard-led study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, examined the effect of PFAS exposure in about 600 adolescents from the Faroe Islands off the coast of Denmark. Individuals exposed to the substances at a young age displayed lower-than-expected levels of antibodies to tetanus and diphtheria after being immunized, raising the prospect that the chemical exposure could be reducing the effectiveness of childhood vaccines.

Read more:

One city’s solution to drinking water contamination? Get rid of every lead pipe.

Schools around the country find lead in water, with no easy answers

More than 5,300 U.S. water systems violated lead-testing rules last year

Flint’s water crisis reveals government failures at every level

All Comments
Newest First
Pause live updates
iamhe999
8/9/2016 9:44 PM EDT [Edited]
Hormone disrupters…. cause metabolic syndrome…. an epidemic affecting US males…

Corporate, good for profit chemicals, are making American men sick… Endocrine disrupters accumulate… older men eventually develop bloated belly, high blood pressure, diabetes… ED.
LikeReplyShare
Dennis Mudloff
8/9/2016 7:01 PM EDT
Nearly 1 in 10 Americans live within 10 miles of a contaminated military site; factor in the contamination created by the private sector and we are all in deep toxic waste.
#PoisonedAndLeftForDead
LikeReplyShare
Jim Wright
8/9/2016 4:24 PM EDT
6 million? The pressa cts like it is 300 million. China has the real problem!
LikeReplyShare
skramsv
8/9/2016 2:06 PM EDT
Until people start realizing how much polluted water is costing them, it is not likely that any steps will be made to fix our polluted drinking water. There is a basic assumption that our water is clean and safe. Most drinking water companies put out water quality reports at least on a yearly basis, yet I don’t think too many people read them.

I highly recommend that everyone read their water company report as often as it comes out. I would also suggest you talk with the water department as to how they filter/treat the water and where the water comes from. Then I would look at the watershed around the source. From there, I would talk to the community waste water treatment plant to find out how they treat the water, what gets filtered out, and what you can do to make the plant run better.

If you know about your water treatment plants, you will be able to make better decisions when it comes to plant fixes or upgrades. Information is power and can make you safer.
LikeReplyShare2
Terry Bigler
8/9/2016 1:28 PM EDT [Edited]
We are busy poisioning ourselves off for profit,,I say good riddance. Given paradise we preferred to turn it into a land fill…You get what you deserve. Well except for the wealthy who drink water out of plastic bottles

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/08/09/blame-plate-tectonics-for-the-disappearance-of-this-ancient-sea/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/06/28/more-than-5000-u-s-water-systems-violated-lead-testing-rules-last-year/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/schools-around-the-country-find-lead-in-water-with-no-easy-answers/2016/07/03/b44240fe-37c3-11e6-a254-2b336e293a3c_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/one-citys-solution-to-drinking-water-contamination-get-rid-of-every-lead-pipe/2016/05/10/480cd842-0814-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/flints-water-crisis-reveals-government-failures-at-every-level/2016/01/23/03705f0c-c11e-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-us-drinking-water-many-chemicals-are-regulated–but-many-arent/2016/06/09/e48683bc-21b9-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303280.html

PITTSBORO, N.C. — For all the pathogens and chemicals monitored by the federal government to protect drinking water, a far broader universe of “emerging contaminants” is going unregulated.

The Environmental Protection Agency keeps tabs on scores of substances that have surfaced in water systems around the country, with the aim of restricting those that endanger public health. But partly because the rules that the agency must follow are complicated and contentious, officials have failed to successfully regulate any new contaminant in two decades.

Only once since the 1990s has the EPA come close to imposing a new standard — for perchlorate, a chemical found in explosives, road flares, rocket fuel and, it turns out, the drinking water of over 16 million people.

The years of inaction, critics say, have left many Americans at potential risk from substances that few even realize might be in their water in the first place.

[Flint’s water crisis reveals government failures at every level]
An N.C. State University researcher holds a river-water sample that will be tested for the “emerging contaminant” 1,4-dioxane. (Julie Williams Dixon)
“We live in a country where we’ve made a fundamental decision that chemicals are safe unless they’re proven to be bad,” said Jeffrey Griffiths, a public health professor at Tufts University School of Medicine who studies waterborne diseases. “We have this system which is biased toward the presumption of innocence.”

Here in North Carolina, one of the contaminants on the government’s watch list has been found in rivers and streams on which more than a million people depend.

Since 2013, Detlef Knappe and a team of researchers at N.C. State University have logged hundreds of miles as they gather samples along the Cape Fear River basin. From Greensboro in the heart of the state to the coastal city of Wilmington, they have identified troubling levels of 1,4-dioxane, a byproduct of plastics manufacturing that can be found in paint strippers, varnishes, detergents, shampoos and cosmetics. The EPA has deemed it a “likely human carcinogen,” although limited data exist on the cancer risks it poses for people.

“1,4-dioxane really has no business being in the water,” said Knappe, an environmental engineering professor who has worked with state regulators and the National Science Foundation to dig deeper into the issue. “This has probably been going on for decades, but no one has really looked at it. . . We only find what we look for.”

The EPA keeps a list of about 100 unregulated contaminants that have made their way into water supplies from industrial sites and other sources. Every five years, the agency updates a shorter lineup of chemicals that it thinks should be tracked and studied and requires utilities to do testing. The current inventory includes two viruses and 28 chemicals, including 1,4-dioxane. The goal is to eventually regulate those that pose the greatest risk to public health.

But critics say that regulators should be moving far more assertively, even as scientists continue researching the short- and long-term health impacts. They blame both the system set up by Congress as well as the agency’s glacial pace.

“For an agency to be unable to adopt a single new standard in 20 years is inexcusable,” said Erik Olson, health and environment program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s a combination of a bad law and very bad implementation.”
Researchers sample water from North Carolina’s Haw River to check for 1,4-dioxane. High levels have been detected in rivers and streams that supply water to a major part of the state. (Julie Williams Dixon)
In the wake of the lead crisis in Flint, Mich., and other problems in communities elsewhere, many people are increasingly wary of what flows from the faucets of their homes and schools — and whether the federal government is doing enough to safeguard drinking water. In April, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that more than 60 percent of Americans rate the government’s efforts as just fair or poor.

In 1974, the newly enacted Safe Drinking Water Act gave the EPA broad authority to monitor and regulate the nation’s public drinking-water supplies. The agency adopted existing standards covering nearly two dozen microbial and inorganic chemical contaminants. When regulators took too long to expand that number, Congress made clear in 1986 that it wanted faster action.

A bipartisan majority passed additional legislation requiring the agency to establish drinking-water limits for scores of contaminants — including bacteria such as legionella and chemical compounds including acrylamide and xylene. Lawmakers also directed the agency to set up a system for monitoring still-unregulated contaminants.

The result over the next decade was health-based thresholds for more than 85 substances, including a range of disinfection byproducts and chemicals known to increase the risks of kidney damage, high blood pressure and cancer, among other conditions.

Those efforts prompted complaints from some local water officials about the increased costs and time needed to comply with the wave of new regulations. Utilities faced testing and treatment requirements for a growing list of contaminants — some that appeared only in certain parts of the country and some that scientists were still studying to determine their public health implications.

In 1996, Congress intervened again. This time, lawmakers directed the EPA to do detailed cost-benefit analyses on additional contaminants that it sought to restrict. The agency also had to ensure that sufficient science existed to establish the public health risks of a particular substance before attempting to regulate it.

“It created this Herculean set of tasks that EPA had to go through before they could adopt any new standards,” Olson said.

In the 20 years since, the EPA has come close to successfully regulating only one new chemical contaminant in drinking water. In 2011, reversing a Bush administration decision, the agency announced its intention to set a federal standard for perchlorate. Exposure to the chemicalcan disrupt thyroid function in humans.

Yet the agency still has not put any limits in place. The Natural Resources Defense Council recently sued, saying the EPA’s inaction could be exposing children and pregnant women to harm.

[One city’s solution to drinking water contamination? Get rid of every lead pipe.]

Joel Beauvais, who leads the EPA’s Office of Water, acknowledged that the agency’s pace in regulating new chemicals had slowed, in part because of the system mandated by Congress. “It’s a rather intensive process to get one of these drinking-water regulations across the finish line,” he said.

The law demands that the agency move deliberately — and there are reasons for that, he said. A substance may occur in only a very small number of drinking-water systems, for instance, or it may not have been detected at levels of concern. Before the EPA imposes new burdens on thousands of water systems, it must prove that there is a meaningful opportunity to improve public health.

“These are very consequential regulations,” he said. “They are consequential from a health perspective. They are consequential from an economic perspective.”

Beauvais noted that the EPA has updated standards for certain contaminants as well as revised other rules, such as those for treating wastewater, in ways that help contain the number of contaminants in drinking water. Officials also have said that they are exploring new approaches and could begin regulating entire groups of substances rather than targeting one at a time.

The agency has issued numerous health advisories — most recently for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a potentially toxic compound that has turned up in many water systems — that can prompt state and local officials to take action or at least notify residents about contaminants. Ultimately, though, the advisories are unenforceable.

The American Water Works Association says the EPA should winnow its list to focus on a handful of chemicals that pose the biggest public health concerns.

“In a resource-constrained world, it’s hard to make progress spreading your resources broadly,” said Steve Via, the association’s director of federal relations. “The way the current process is running, with large numbers of contaminants on the list, you don’t get enough focus to achieve progress. When you don’t achieve progress, folks ask if the process is working.”

Congress on Tuesday passed a sweeping revision of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which covers thousands of chemicals in products as diverse as sippy cups, paint thinners and permanent-press clothing. The overhaul will give the EPA the power to require health and safety data for untested chemicals and to prevent substances from reaching the market — and, ultimately, drinking-water sources — if they have not been determined to be safe. Implementation will take years, however.

“Prevention is an in­cred­ibly important issue for the country over time,” Beauvais said. “If we regulate more on the front end, we’re less likely to have contamination from chemicals with adverse health effects on the back end.”

In North Carolina, environmental officials published a report earlier this year detailing a year’s worth of sampling for 1,4-dioxane within the Cape Fear River basin. It highlighted “hot spots” for the contaminant located immediately downstream of wastewater facilities, suggesting that manufacturers or other industrial operators were sending it into municipal sewers. Current water treatments do not effectively remove the chemical.

“People are understandably concerned,” said Steve Drew, Greensboro’s director of water resources. “[But] in the absence of enforceable limits, what is a water system to do?”

His department and other downstream communities responded by launching a sort of detective operation. They tested hundreds of miles of sewer lines and met with business owners to track down the possible sources of 1,4-dioxane.

“We got it down to about a half-dozen or so businesses — a couple that had very high levels of 1,4-dioxane discharged into our system,” Drew said. “These companies are not even thinking about it because they aren’t regulated on it.”

He said the companies have been “very diligent” in trying to alter supply chains and remove the chemical voluntarily from their manufacturing processes. There are early signs that those efforts are slowly beginning to lower 1,4-dioxane levels in the river basin.

But if companies balk, Drew has no way to force them to cooperate.

“Right now,” he said, “it’s completely dependent on good relationships, and ‘please’ and ‘thank you.’ ”

All Comments
Newest First
Pause live updates
Sedge2
6/12/2016 6:30 AM EDT
Can’t let a little thing like human health and welfare get in the way of corporate profits. Of course ideology can trump education and science. Right? Lamar Smith.
LikeShare2
Craig Monk
6/11/2016 7:37 PM EDT
For the ignorant please rad EPA’s Office of Inspector General Report No. 14-P-0363
LikeShare
Craig Monk
6/11/2016 7:36 PM EDT
For the ignorant read the EPA Office of Inspector General Report No, 14-P-0363
LikeShare
kimmsr
6/11/2016 5:56 PM EDT
This goes back to the Reagan era when the thought was that if the “government” got out of the way of business business would do the right thing .
LikeShare2
HokieDoke
6/13/2016 10:37 AM EDT
Since Reagan there has been a couple of Bushs, and 16 years of Clinton + Obama. What have any of them done?
Like1
Clarkque
6/14/2016 8:18 PM EDT
Both Presidents Clinton and Obama made several attempts to enforce Clean Water Act and expand their applications. But Republican governors at behest of the Koch Bros through ALEC have sued these administrations repeatedly. Republican Congressmen have also repeatedly blocked any effective enforcement through reducing funds for EPA and all public land agencies. Until the GOP decides that humans are America’s most valuable resource we will continue to see ramifications of poor environmental controls. For all those feigning pro-life stances, they need to learn that water is life. Poisoning water, land and air is anti-life. Let’s start calling people by their real names: environmentalists = health advocates, pro-life = fetal obsessed fundamentalists that are willing to destroy Earth and all its inhabitants to hasten their fantasy of paradise somewhere else
Like1
stadelmaier
6/11/2016 4:13 PM EDT
Pharmaceutical advertising has corrupted the media in the same way that tobacco advertising did in the past.
No mention of a very dangerous contaminent – the drugs from upstream cities in recycled downstream drinking water.
LikeShare1
Sedge2
6/12/2016 6:18 AM EDT [Edited]
And make sure you go tell your doctor what to prescribe based on what you saw of TV. Next time you are in the doctor’s office make sure you note what the drug pushers, I mean sales persons, look like. Big Phrma stocks their sales staff with hot chicks and hunks. For some unknown reason you won’t see older more experienced sales persons. I think we saw something similar with years ago with the airlines.
Like
Seabreezes1
6/11/2016 1:21 PM EDT [Edited]
The AWWA suggests the EPA “winnow” its list of contaminants to only focus on the worst ones?!***!

Does that mean rank a list of 10 disease causing chemicals and give a pass to the bottom 8 so you can celebrate reducing the lowered measurements of for the top two chemicals in water?
– What comfort does that afford the families of children dying from cancer?
– What satisfaction does that give YOU when you get a diagnosis of cancer?
– Does a self awarded EPA “gold star” help you sleep better at night when your kidneys are aching and rash is itching from your exposure to irritating chemicals in your water?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/08/09/daily-202-why-some-republican-politicians-are-really-coming-out-against-trump/57a94085cd249a7e29d0cf87/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/28/she-thought-her-server-was-great-then-she-saw-her-racist-snapchat-post/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/ECO/DioxaneReport_Yr1Final-20160127.pdf

http://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-issues-new-health-advisories-for-chemical-from-some-plastics-plants-1463687484

https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants

https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/science_nation/capefearwatershed.jsp

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/Sorry-but-those-jerks-chanting-No-more-war-had-a-point.html
Over the last seven years, I’ve learned the easiest way to find out if your opinion on an important issue is a) so provocative that some people are offended by it b) obnoxious c) just plain stupid d) some combination of a), b), and c). Just throw it out there on Twitter — the less time wasted thinking about the consequences, the better! — and watch your number of followers precipitously plunge.

I achieved this blessed state on Thursday night — the last night of the Democratic National Convention. I lost about 10, maybe 12 followers right after I used my 1st Amendment right to express my unpopular opinion: That, at least morally, I was 100 percent behind the dissidents — mostly pro-Bernie Sanders delegates — loudly chanting “No more war!” during speeches by folks associated with the military, especially Leon Panetta, the former Defense secretary under President Obama, and retired Gen. John Allen, who showed up to give Hillary Clinton a very loud endorsement.

I was quickly accused (mostly by liberals, I’m pretty sure) of being either unpatriotic or maybe a hapless dupe who wanted to see neo-fascist Donald Trump become our next president, by associating the Democrats with being “against the troops.” The critics did have one strong point, that anyone who interrupted actual veterans or military parents — the folks who make the sacrifices, not the decisions — was out of line. Without a doubt. But I think the Leon Panettas of the world are more than fair game for protest chants, even rude ones.

With four days to reconsider, I’m more behind the “no more war” protests than ever. In fact, I’m doubling down.

I was thinking about this even before the news today that the U.S. has embarked on yet another round of military adventurism in the Middle East — launching a bombing campaign (a “precision” bombing campaign, the Pentagon and its chosen mouthpiece Barbara Starr of CNN assure us) against ISIS terrorists in Libya. You’ll recall that ISIS flourished in Libya only after the last bombing campaign in Libya by the United States and its allies created a power vacuum to be filled largely by bad guys.

You may also recall that the legal justification for waging war in Libya is flimsy, at best. Pentagon officials say the new air strikes are sanctioned under the AUMF — Authorization for Use of Military Force — passed by Congress in 2001 after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. No matter that Libya, for all its faults, had nothing to do with 9/11. Or that ISIS, the target of the attacks, didn’t exist until a decade after the World Trade Center fell. We stopped asking such questions about America’s Forever War™ a long, long time ago.

Or, as the mostly pro-Hillary Democrats inside the Wells Fargo Center would put it, “USA! USA!”

Watching the Democratic and Republican conventions the last two weeks, you’d almost get the impression that there’s no alternative vision to the idea that the country with the world’s largest military, by far, should treat every international problem the way that a hammer treats every problem as a nail. In fact, there is a powerful homegrown critique of the overuse of the American military; some of its strongest proponents are people with extensive experience with the Armed Forces. I’m thinking of critics such as Andrew Bacevich, a retired colonel and Vietnam veteran who lost his own son in the Iraq War, who wrote:

“America will surely share the fate of all those who in ages past have looked to war and military power to fulfill their destiny. We will rob future generations of their rightful inheritance. We will wreak havoc abroad. We will endanger our security at home. We will risk the forfeiture of all that we prize.”

Bacevich also noted that, “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Those weren’t his words, but a quote from Founding Father James Madison. I wonder what would have happened if the fourth president had been reanimated and uttered those words at the DNC. Would the pro-Hillary delegates would be getting texts from Clinton floor whips to chant “USA! USA!” to drown out Madison’s politically risky words, just as they were instructed to shout down the Sanders delegates? And yet — speaking of “preserve its freedom” — isn’t it the zeitgest of the Forever War™ that motivates the “security zones” with their 10-foot high fences, or the FBI’s obscene intimidation campaign of visiting activists’ family members before the confabs in Cleveland and Philadelphia?

The delegates didn’t hear from an Andrew Bacevich or the equivalent of James Madison, but they did get Panetta, who — as noted in this excellent analysis — has supported expanded war powers for the White House, failed to push for real accountability on Bush-era torture, and once suggested that “a 30-year war” will be needed against terrorism. Was it really rude for some of the DNC delegates to chant “no more war!” during Panetta’s speech? Or were some citizens desperately trying to be heard with a different point of view, in a nation so eager to squelch any public debate?

It should be a scandal that the United States drops bombs from flying death robots or our obscenely expensive military jets over countries like Libya, swaths of Africa, or Syria based only on a 15-year-old congressional resolution passed after an attack carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians loyal to a terrorist group that barely exists in 2016. But we’re afraid of any frank discussion of that, or the recent admission by the Obama administration that U.S. military actions in nations with which we’re not technically at war have killed 116 innocent civilians. That’s a number that experts find ridiculously low, by the way, and doesn’t as include as many as 85 Syrian civilians who were killed in late July by a U.S. airstrike — a story that was all but ignored in the media. Even if you strongly believe that such collateral damage is necessary to defeat international terrorism, chanting “USA! USA!” to support militarism is both jingoistic and crudely callous toward the dead.

But this isn’t exactly new. During my recent Conventionapalooza, I took an hour break to watch a PBS documentary on the most notorious modern convention of them all, the 1968 DNC in Chicago. As we now know, what happened outside the halls — the respect shown protesters in Philly compared with Mayor Daley’s head-bashing “police riot” 48 years ago — changed radically over time. But inside the hall, Democrats worked tirelessly to stifle dissidents in ’68 much as they would in ’16. In Chicago, delegates who supported Eugene McCarthy or other anti-Vietnam War candidates were harassed over credentials and other petty stuff, similar to complaints from Sanders delegates here. An anti-Vietnam plank was pushed out of prime time by the party bosses; when the defeated faction burst into “We Shall Overcome,” Daley and the pro-Hubert Humphrey forces tried to drown them out with a band blaring “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Exactly like “USA!” chants drowning out “No more war!” in our modern times.

Same as it ever was.

It’s a shame that it went down this way, because a lot of the DNC was hugely successful in redefining what patriotism and truly loving America means in the 21st century — embracing our remarkable ethnic, racial and religious diversity, and showing that “freedom” isn’t just about making money but also who you love, or the rights of the disabled and others who’ve been marginalized. I just don’t think that also embracing everything in the Pentagon’s $600 billion budget or the notion of U.S. carte blanche to use those weapons anywhere in the world that it wants to is what makes America great — nor is shouting down critics with jingoist chants.

One of the many, many, many reasons that Trump is such a disaster for American democracy is that you’re going to see a lot of serious policy discussions silenced these next three months, often in the name of defeating the threat of Trump. The failure to seriously dilute the military-industrial complex that then-President Eisenhower warned us about 55 years ago is maybe the most important.

So I’m sorry if I’m offending anyone by siding with those obnoxious jerks who had the temerity to wonder if and when America is ever going to give peace a chance, and to do so at politically incorrect moments. Now, excuse me while I go check how many more Twitter followers I’ve lost.

BourrasqueDeNeige • 9 days ago
Bless you for your honesty and willingness to state what should be the obvious. That can happen and it has happened many times in history, however, it is most noble when saying the right thing or taking the principled stand occurs when it is deeply unpopular and when your fellow citizens are literally aping See no evil”, “Hear No Evil”,. and especially “Speak no Evil”. There is wrong-headedness (I don’t like the word evil, sounds too simplistic like the mind of George W. Bush) in regard to foreign policy and not only are we not allowed to to vote for a candidate who opposes war, we will be shouted down if we espouse the idea of anti-war activism.

I liked it when we had an opposition party in the United States. If we were only going to have two, at least one should take opposite views on the issues. The same Military Industrial Complex that maintains perpetual war is the same entity that profits now from the surveillance state. Democracy cannot survive perpetual war. The founding fathers knew that.

When I was young, in the 1960s, commentators would drone on about the fall of the Roman Empire. Comparisons were made with the burgeoning American Empire (called the Free World then) and fears were spread that if liberalization spread, the resulting moral decay would send us spiraling into the ash heap of history. I have since lived and worked in Rome for a year and one-half and subsequently lived in another part of Western Europe for over 10 years. I’ve thought about that a lot and I’ve come to the conclusion that we missed the true fall by nearly 500 years.

The tragedy of Rome, the political culture that in many ways influenced our founders was not, in my opinion, the sacking of Rome in the 5th Century, but that fall of the Roman Republic in 44 BC. Empire and Republic could not coexist so it was henceforth ruled by dictators. The population was kept in check via harsh rule and Bread and Circuses. We are very close to that today. Perpetual war is the enemy of our freedom and people would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than participate in our broken system.
12 •Share ›
Avatar
BobSmith77 BourrasqueDeNeige • 8 days ago
The American military and politicians learned the lessons from Vietnam:

1. Shift to a voluntary-based armed services and do away with a draft especially if it impact upper-middle and upper class families

2. Never again allow news TV coverage on a nightly basis to cover the conflict and show its carnage

3. Suppress photos and implement policies which make it difficult to show American service personnel coffins and dead bodies

4. When necessary, show examples and footage repeatedly of how the ‘high-tech’ American military works including its ‘precision-ability’ to get only the ‘bad guys’

5. Whenever possible, being as vague as possible and refuse to get into any specifics regarding the actual enemy combatants instead using generic terms that are easily understand and grasped

6. Do not sack top-level senior leadership in the military command regardless of how incompetent or inept their strategies are and what results they actually produce.

7. Build the narrative of ‘support the troops’ wherever possible into American daily life including schools, professional sporting events, etc. If someone questions whether this is appropriate, immediately question their patriotism and values as ‘unAmerican.’
12 •Share ›
Avatar
BourrasqueDeNeige BobSmith77 • 8 days ago
Right on! Point seven is especially poignant in regard to Vietnam since the troops in the meat-grinder were used are tools by the government against those who wanted them back from that needless and illegal war. When many came back and discussed the awful crimes they saw, they were branded as crazy or drug-addicts. The nation was told that the war must go on and more should die in order to make sure those who had already given their lives in a worthless cause did not die in vain. Sick and criminal.
2 •Share ›
Avatar
Archimedes BourrasqueDeNeige • 8 days ago
This post from BourrasqueDeNeige is one of the best comments on one of Will’s columns that I have seen. Thanks. I just finished reading a terrific history of Rome and the loss of the Republic (which was losing ground for quite some time) was a major loss to civilization. The loss of our republic, which might happen if Trump wins, would be a second major loss.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Kenney-the-cops-and-exorcizing-Frank-Rizzos-ghost.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-least-85-civilians-feared-dead-after-us-air-strike-mistake-1571600

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/obama-drones-strikes-civilian-deaths

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/07/27/3802813/panetta-protests-dnc/

http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/06/fbi_police_visit_activists_hom.html

http://harpers.org/blog/2007/07/madison-on-the-dangers-of-war/

http://www.independent.org/publications/TIR/article.asp?a=569

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/the_forever_war_when_will_we_stop_using_a_september_2001_authorization_of.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/8-days-over-America-and-the-walls-that-divide-us.html

Watch Delegates Chant ‘No More War’ During Leon Panetta’s Speech

“No more war.”
A group of disgruntled delegates chanted “no more war” as former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke at the Democratic national convention Wednesday.

The former CIA director, who oversaw the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, was dismissing Republican nominee Donald Trump’s views on foreign policy when the chanting broke out.

Convention organizers shut off stage lights in the sections of the crowd where the chanting was taking place, making them less visible on television as Panetta struggled to maintain control.

“The American dream that we’ve all been a part of has been defended in every generation by the brave men and women willing to fight and die for America. They are our greatest national treasure,” Panetta said, having to restart his sentence multiple times because of the chanting.

Panetta previously served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and director of the Office of Management and Budget.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.

Clinton’s personal office in New York confirmed that the call occurred in late May, but an aide to Clinton said the 2016 race was never specifically discussed and that it was only a casual chat.

The talk with Clinton — the spouse of the Democratic presidential front-runner and one of his party’s preeminent political strategists — came just weeks before Trump jumped into the GOP race and surged to the front of the crowded Republican field.

The revelation of the call comes as many Republicans have begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation.

Trump took the call from his office in Trump Tower in New York, according to the four allies, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. The call came as Trump was making a final decision about whether to run, and he was candid about his political ambitions and his potential interest in seeking the White House during the talk, these allies said.

The 42nd president listened intently and then analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the GOP base, the Trump allies said.

The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.

One person with knowledge of Clinton’s end of the call said the former president was upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation.

Clinton aides declined to speak on the record about the call, saying the conversation was personal.

“Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”

One Trump adviser said Clinton called Trump, but the adviser did not provide specifics about how the call came about.

People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.

At the time, Trump was touting a “foolproof” but undisclosed plan to defeat Islamic State terrorists and ramping up his presence on the airwaves, including interviews where he was asked about his donations to the Clinton Foundation. He entered the race June 16.

Neither side would provide an exact date for the call, but both Bill Clinton’s office and a person close to Trump described it as “late May.”

Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, declined to comment. The campaign of Hillary Clinton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump is a longtime acquaintance of the Clintons, both of whom attended the businessman’s third wedding in 2005. Since Trump entered the presidential race, however, he and Hillary Clinton have increasingly traded barbs.

She has condemned Trump’s racially charged remarks about Mexican immigrants and tut-tutted about his remark that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is not a war hero.

“Donald Trump. Finally, a candidate whose hair gets more attention than mine,” Clinton joked at a Democratic dinner in Arkansas in July. “But there’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and families, and now the insults he has directed at a genuine war hero, Sen. John McCain.”

That was a rare instance in which Clinton mentioned Trump by name. Also in July, before a largely Hispanic audience, Clinton had this to say:

“I have just one word for Mr. Trump. Basta!”

In June, she criticized Trump, without using his name, over his references to Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals during his June campaign launch speech.

“A recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable,” Clinton said in an interview with Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston.

Clinton demurred when asked to specify to whom she was referring. Instead, she has frequently sought to tie Trump’s views to the broader GOP field.

“I think he is emblematic,” she said. “I want people to understand it’s not about him — it’s about everybody.”

Clinton has reserved her sharpest attacks for former Florida governor Jeb Bush and other candidates she has called out by name for their policies on immigration, abortion and other issues.

For his part, Trump said little about Clinton until recent weeks.

“Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina,” Trump wrote in a post on Instagram, following that interview. “This is why politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble.”

Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Sign up
And on Wednesday, Trump wrote in a Twitter message: “Do you notice that Hillary spews out Jeb’s name as often as possible in order to give him status? She knows Trump is her worst nightmare.”

That’s a long way from the cordial, even cozy, relationship between the two when Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York and Trump was a constituent and supporter.

At Trump’s 2005 wedding, Hillary Clinton sat in the front row for the ceremony, and Bill Clinton joined her for festivities later. The Clintons were photographed laughing chummily with Trump and new wife Melania Knauss at the reception, with Bill Clinton clasping Trump’s shoulder.

Trump has also donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation.
Annika Kolasa
8/12/2015 6:11 PM EDT
What if Trump is just doing this to make money and pay off his debts?
LikeShare3
manonthestreet
8/10/2015 7:20 AM EDT
What viable candidate would need the other side sabotaged this badly? Instead of an issues and character based election cycle this has been nothing more than a side show slap down so far. If US voters are this gullible we fully deserve what comes next.
LikeShare3
Skip Lee
8/9/2015 12:29 PM EDT
Trump Is no doubt dividing the threat to Hillary ..he was in long intimate conversations with Bill Clinton two weeks before he announced his presidency….when Trump was married the Clinton s were there in the service …..he is in constant contact with Bill….Trump loves to be a spoiler and he now is possibly playing a spoilers dream by dividing Hillary’s threat and giving payback for past favors from Bill….he absolutely loves the fact he can act presidential but never have to own up to the offices responsibility…..game player of the highest level… the spoiler….every Casino has one….If you think Hillary isn’t smart enough to employee this then you don’t know Hillary..
LikeShare3
Daisytoo
8/8/2015 7:23 PM EDT
Trump is a malignantly opportunistic and crude oaf. He’s a Democrat and as incompetent as Obama to be POTUS.
LikeShare
Jolie Mcmillian
8/8/2015 9:28 AM EDT
The Republicans are being played like a fiddle. He is purposely disrupting the party, and creating a circus like atmosphere.
LikeShare5
WilliamDog61
8/7/2015 1:05 PM EDT
The Donald probably encouraged Hillary to run to block their old enemy. What would happen if he got the Republican nomination and brought Hillary in after she deops out like she did last time? She’s not doing much to campaign and the party will not have much control over him. No matter, this will be the best election in our country ever.
LikeShare
You_Really_Believe_That
8/7/2015 10:34 AM EDT
I expect Trump to run as a third party candidate ensuring the election of Hillary.
LikeShare6
Jennifer14th
8/7/2015 10:43 AM EDT
I would prefer he run as a third party candidate, ensuring the election of Bernie.
Like3
Sara Hill
8/8/2015 5:31 PM EDT
Which is why Bill Clinton encouraged him to run, even if he denied it.
Like3
centsable
8/7/2015 9:22 AM EDT
LOL…tRump paling around with Bill? Say it aint so!!!
LikeShare1
centsable
8/7/2015 9:18 AM EDT
Good for the Donald, crossing party lines, something teacons hate.
LikeShare
centsable
8/7/2015 9:18 AM EDT
Good for the Donald, crossing party lines, something teacons hate.
LikeShare
jafeigen
8/6/2015 8:18 PM EDT
Why is this a surprise? I doubt Trump is the only candidate in the GOP field that has had a phone call with Bill Clinton in the past year.

A new twist on the “Manchurian Candidate”

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170583

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendship and even large donations he made to them prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them. One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected. I mean no one this rich could be THAT dumb to say the things he does unless it’s intentional self-sabotage.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendship and even large donations he made to them prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them. One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected. I mean no one this rich could be THAT dumb to say the things he does unless it’s intentional self-sabotage.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170583

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendship and even large donations he made to them prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them. One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected. I mean no one this rich could be THAT dumb to say the things he does unless it’s intentional self-sabotage.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendship and even large donations he made to them prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them. One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected. I mean no one this rich could be THAT dumb to say the things he does unless it’s intentional self-sabotage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/09/101-year-old-man-tells-glenn-beck-what-he-remembers-about-the-1929-stock-market-crash/

I’m seeing even worse parallels happening to US now than what happened in 1929 as I understand them (and of course I only have second hand knowledge of this time). I remember how the Great Depression affected my Dad (from the many stories he told me) and he wasn’t even born until 1937 (many years afterwards) yet it affected him deeply as a child. It took decades for the US to recover. It may take a Century when it happens again. My wish is that I be dead before we get to this second Great Depression.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170181

Although I generally believe that the less said about Hillary Clinton, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Hillary’s self-satisfied hypnopompic insights. One of the first facts we should face is that you don’t have to say anything specifically about Hillary for her to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should rise to the challenge of thwarting her passive-aggressive plans.

To most people, the list of Hillary’s immoral remonstrations reads like a comic strip but her jokes are actually taken seriously by her stooges. I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to tell you things that Hillary doesn’t want you to know. And just let her try and stop me.

On the other hand, there isn’t a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Hillary is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative, so let’s toss out that ridiculous argument of Hillary’s from the get-go. Is it any wonder that what she seems to be forgetting is that her recourse to miserabilism as a tactical modality for waging low-intensity warfare has been successful? Her profound moral culpability, arising from her history of onanism and exploitation, deprives her of any right to judge other individuals. This is the flaw in her programs of Gleichschaltung. She doesn’t understand that there’s a famous mathematical proof that pertains to her. Essentially, this proof asserts that given that now is the time to redefine the rhetoric and make room for meaningful discussion, then, loosely speaking, it must be the case that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why she would want to prey on people’s fear of political and economic instability. There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Hillary’s essays from the first word to the last. An interesting sidebar to what I just wrote is that Hillary speaks like a true defender of the status quo—a status quo, we should not forget, that enables her to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on disorderly parasitism.

The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: If you can make any sense out Hillary’s incomprehensible, cheeky monographs then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. So, Hillary, maybe the problem is not with impetuous maggots, but with you. Unfortunately, I do not have enough space remaining in this letter to distinguish the politics of fogyism from fogyism politics. Simply put, the former is a craven strategy that promotes giving an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments. The latter, which is favored by Hillary and her loony-bin crew, denies that if Hillary is going to talk about higher standards then she needs to live by those higher standards. She does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when she says that granting her complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air, that’s where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. You may not be aware of this, but Hillary’s cosmopolitan credentials are being used in the service of a radically anti-modernist, culturally and economically reactionary project. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that Hillary seems to assume that she understands the difference between civilization and savagery. This is an assumption of the worst kind because she’s sincerely interested in donning the mantel of priggism and mulcting us out of our lives’ savings. Accomplishing this, alas, is a mission to which her coadjutors appear resolutely pledged. They will stop at nothing until they’ve managed to prevent the public from realizing that some people believe that one day Hillary’s eulogists will encourage open, civic engagement. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that Hillary accuses me of being rancorous whenever I state that I am not ashamed to admit that she is eminently scummy. All right, I’ll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that Hillary ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

Fact: Hillary’s warnings set the intellectual and moral stage for a new wave of blinkered policies that seek to doctor evidence and classification systems and make pestilential generalizations to support doctrinaire, preconceived views.

Fact: Hillary doesn’t want equality but revenge.

Fact: Hillary should pay a price for her ghastly prognoses.

In addition, Hillary’s long-term goal is to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. I hate to break it to her, but down that path lies only heartache and tears. That’s why I insist on mentioning that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want to see all of us working together to step back and consider the problem of Hillary’s tractates in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that griping about Hillary will not make her stop trying to revive an arcadian past that never existed. But even if it did, she would just find some other way to defend ultraism, obscurantism, and notions of racial superiority.

Hillary’s grand plan is to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary “victimhood”. I’m sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Hillary’s plan is to regiment the public mind as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers. Hillary’s followers are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes reducing human beings to the status of domestic animals. Hillary is firmly convinced that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of ungracious stereotypes. Her belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that Hillary’s chums avow that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and liberate the mind. I say to them, “Prove it”—not that they’ll be able to, of course, but because we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because her deflection and falsification of our highest culture tendencies will waffle on all the issues. In view of that, it is not surprising that if you think that promoting revanchism helps one gain skills for success in an increasingly complex and globalized marketplace, then think again.

Does Hillary have trouble living with herself, knowing that she just wants to avoid detection and punishment? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I’ve answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I’ll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I’ll just say that she has repeatedly threatened to shame my name. Maybe that’s just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it’s because there are some troubling issues here, even putting aside the basic question of whether or not even within her band, Hillary regularly employs torture, slavery, violence, mass starvation, and other abuses to terrorize her worshippers into producing precisely the alienation and conflict needed to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public’s opinion of them. For instance, Hillary has so frequently lied about how nepotism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that Hillary’s hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to ring the bells of truth. After I encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: Hillary’s whinges are more than namby-pamby. They fill me with a sense of despair. More than anything else, they make me realize that for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who roam the globe without papers, rights, or citizenship, the crucial issue is not that we build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. Rather, these stranded souls simply want everyone to acknowledge that I unmistakably dislike Hillary. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that I have seen numerous shrewish sciolism enthusiasts compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. What’s sad is that Hillary tolerates (relishes?) this flagrant violation of democratic principles and the rule of law. That just goes to show that like many nitpicky, prudish mob bosses, Hillary is a hater. But she’s worse than other haters. She wants to put her hatred into action and promote mediocrity over merit. This worries me because if you look back over some of my older letters, you’ll see that I predicted that Hillary would brainwash the masses into submission. And, as I predicted, she did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Hillary could have made the same prediction.

I am, of course, referring to a recent occurrence that is so well-known it requires no comment except to add that among the many challenges in looking at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture is a bottom-line unawareness of how anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for “advanced” thought in the humanities already knows that this is a fine example of what I’ve been talking about. What may be news, however, is that if it turns out that there’s no way to prevent her from denying citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that she is capable of then I guess it’ll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I’ll just have to give up trying to convince the most birdbrained nabobs of sensationalism I’ve ever seen to stop supporting Hillary and tolerating her diatribes and accept the fact that I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of her spleenful perversions and oligophrenic flights of fancy. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that of all of Hillary’s exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: “One can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved.” I don’t know where she came up with this, but her statement is dead wrong.

Unlike everyone else in the world, Hillary seriously believes that the key to living a long and happy life is to needle and wheedle niddering weasels into her peuplade. Woo woooo! Here comes the clue train. Last stop: Hillary. If you read between the lines of her execrations, you’ll obviously find that I’m not writing this letter for your entertainment. I’m not even writing it for your education. I’m writing it for our very survival.

Hillary’s ruses would have more impact if they were more concise and organized. Instead of trying to be as clear as possible to get her point across, Hillary seems to like bandying about all kinds of fancy terms that no one’s ever heard and that completely diminish her point. The idea that people want lethargic upstarts to fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition. So what’s the connection between that and her overgeneralizations? The connection is that I don’t need to be particularly delicate here. There are important lessons in that, even apart from another reminder that Hillary’s squibs are based on a technique I’m sure you’ve heard of. It’s called “lying”. I warrant I’ve now told you everything you need to know about Hillary Clinton. I’ll therefore end this letter with the supererogatory comment that Hillary supports a range of policies and programs that haven’t worked, that don’t work, and that can’t be made to work in the real world—not without creating problems worse than what they were intended to solve, that is.

Although I generally believe that the less said about Hillary Clinton, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Hillary’s self-satisfied hypnopompic insights. One of the first facts we should face is that you don’t have to say anything specifically about Hillary for her to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should rise to the challenge of thwarting her passive-aggressive plans.

To most people, the list of Hillary’s immoral remonstrations reads like a comic strip but her jokes are actually taken seriously by her stooges. I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to tell you things that Hillary doesn’t want you to know. And just let her try and stop me.

On the other hand, there isn’t a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Hillary is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative, so let’s toss out that ridiculous argument of Hillary’s from the get-go. Is it any wonder that what she seems to be forgetting is that her recourse to miserabilism as a tactical modality for waging low-intensity warfare has been successful? Her profound moral culpability, arising from her history of onanism and exploitation, deprives her of any right to judge other individuals. This is the flaw in her programs of Gleichschaltung. She doesn’t understand that there’s a famous mathematical proof that pertains to her. Essentially, this proof asserts that given that now is the time to redefine the rhetoric and make room for meaningful discussion, then, loosely speaking, it must be the case that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why she would want to prey on people’s fear of political and economic instability. There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Hillary’s essays from the first word to the last. An interesting sidebar to what I just wrote is that Hillary speaks like a true defender of the status quo—a status quo, we should not forget, that enables her to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on disorderly parasitism.

The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: If you can make any sense out Hillary’s incomprehensible, cheeky monographs then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. So, Hillary, maybe the problem is not with impetuous maggots, but with you. Unfortunately, I do not have enough space remaining in this letter to distinguish the politics of fogyism from fogyism politics. Simply put, the former is a craven strategy that promotes giving an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments. The latter, which is favored by Hillary and her loony-bin crew, denies that if Hillary is going to talk about higher standards then she needs to live by those higher standards. She does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when she says that granting her complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air, that’s where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. You may not be aware of this, but Hillary’s cosmopolitan credentials are being used in the service of a radically anti-modernist, culturally and economically reactionary project. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that Hillary seems to assume that she understands the difference between civilization and savagery. This is an assumption of the worst kind because she’s sincerely interested in donning the mantel of priggism and mulcting us out of our lives’ savings. Accomplishing this, alas, is a mission to which her coadjutors appear resolutely pledged. They will stop at nothing until they’ve managed to prevent the public from realizing that some people believe that one day Hillary’s eulogists will encourage open, civic engagement. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that Hillary accuses me of being rancorous whenever I state that I am not ashamed to admit that she is eminently scummy. All right, I’ll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that Hillary ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

Fact: Hillary’s warnings set the intellectual and moral stage for a new wave of blinkered policies that seek to doctor evidence and classification systems and make pestilential generalizations to support doctrinaire, preconceived views.

Fact: Hillary doesn’t want equality but revenge.

Fact: Hillary should pay a price for her ghastly prognoses.

In addition, Hillary’s long-term goal is to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. I hate to break it to her, but down that path lies only heartache and tears. That’s why I insist on mentioning that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want to see all of us working together to step back and consider the problem of Hillary’s tractates in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that griping about Hillary will not make her stop trying to revive an arcadian past that never existed. But even if it did, she would just find some other way to defend ultraism, obscurantism, and notions of racial superiority.

Hillary’s grand plan is to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary “victimhood”. I’m sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Hillary’s plan is to regiment the public mind as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers. Hillary’s followers are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes reducing human beings to the status of domestic animals. Hillary is firmly convinced that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of ungracious stereotypes. Her belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that Hillary’s chums avow that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and liberate the mind. I say to them, “Prove it”—not that they’ll be able to, of course, but because we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because her deflection and falsification of our highest culture tendencies will waffle on all the issues. In view of that, it is not surprising that if you think that promoting revanchism helps one gain skills for success in an increasingly complex and globalized marketplace, then think again.

Does Hillary have trouble living with herself, knowing that she just wants to avoid detection and punishment? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I’ve answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I’ll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I’ll just say that she has repeatedly threatened to shame my name. Maybe that’s just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it’s because there are some troubling issues here, even putting aside the basic question of whether or not even within her band, Hillary regularly employs torture, slavery, violence, mass starvation, and other abuses to terrorize her worshippers into producing precisely the alienation and conflict needed to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public’s opinion of them. For instance, Hillary has so frequently lied about how nepotism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that Hillary’s hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to ring the bells of truth. After I encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: Hillary’s whinges are more than namby-pamby. They fill me with a sense of despair. More than anything else, they make me realize that for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who roam the globe without papers, rights, or citizenship, the crucial issue is not that we build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. Rather, these stranded souls simply want everyone to acknowledge that I unmistakably dislike Hillary. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that I have seen numerous shrewish sciolism enthusiasts compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. What’s sad is that Hillary tolerates (relishes?) this flagrant violation of democratic principles and the rule of law. That just goes to show that like many nitpicky, prudish mob bosses, Hillary is a hater. But she’s worse than other haters. She wants to put her hatred into action and promote mediocrity over merit. This worries me because if you look back over some of my older letters, you’ll see that I predicted that Hillary would brainwash the masses into submission. And, as I predicted, she did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Hillary could have made the same prediction.

I am, of course, referring to a recent occurrence that is so well-known it requires no comment except to add that among the many challenges in looking at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture is a bottom-line unawareness of how anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for “advanced” thought in the humanities already knows that this is a fine example of what I’ve been talking about. What may be news, however, is that if it turns out that there’s no way to prevent her from denying citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that she is capable of then I guess it’ll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I’ll just have to give up trying to convince the most birdbrained nabobs of sensationalism I’ve ever seen to stop supporting Hillary and tolerating her diatribes and accept the fact that I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of her spleenful perversions and oligophrenic flights of fancy. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that of all of Hillary’s exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: “One can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved.” I don’t know where she came up with this, but her statement is dead wrong.

Unlike everyone else in the world, Hillary seriously believes that the key to living a long and happy life is to needle and wheedle niddering weasels into her peuplade. Woo woooo! Here comes the clue train. Last stop: Hillary. If you read between the lines of her execrations, you’ll obviously find that I’m not writing this letter for your entertainment. I’m not even writing it for your education. I’m writing it for our very survival.

Hillary’s ruses would have more impact if they were more concise and organized. Instead of trying to be as clear as possible to get her point across, Hillary seems to like bandying about all kinds of fancy terms that no one’s ever heard and that completely diminish her point. The idea that people want lethargic upstarts to fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition. So what’s the connection between that and her overgeneralizations? The connection is that I don’t need to be particularly delicate here. There are important lessons in that, even apart from another reminder that Hillary’s squibs are based on a technique I’m sure you’ve heard of. It’s called “lying”. I warrant I’ve now told you everything you need to know about Hillary Clinton. I’ll therefore end this letter with the supererogatory comment that Hillary supports a range of policies and programs that haven’t worked, that don’t work, and that can’t be made to work in the real world—not without creating problems worse than what they were intended to solve, that is.

 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170192

The Clintons have alarming similarities to the Bushes. No wonder they are so friendly with each other. A plague on both their houses, as Shakespeare would say.

Neocons and Neolibs belong in the same hell together.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendly pictures and friendship they had with him prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them.  One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170191
My inquiries, necessarily hasty and perfunctory as I write this letter to meet a deadline, have elicited a wealth of information about Donald J Trump. Although not without overlap and simplification, I plan to identify three primary positions on Trump’s ruderies. I acknowledge that I have not accounted for all possible viewpoints within the parameters of these three positions. Nevertheless, one of Trump’s most loyal cheerleaders is known to have remarked, “Trump’s band is a colony of heaven called to obey God by diminishing society’s inducements to good behavior.” And there you have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that the key to Trump’s soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. He dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, we must reach out to people with the message that we see the same kind of phenomenon—less obvious, perhaps, but distinctly perceptible—in almost all areas of activity in which Trump chooses to participate. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward nonrepresentationalism.

Despite Trump’s self-image as the primary civilizing force of modern times, Trump is interpersonally exploitative. That is, he takes advantage of others to achieve his own unreasonable ends. Why does he do that? Let me answer from my own personal perspective: As many of you know, I realized a long time ago that I’ve heard numerous complaints about Trump’s behavior. Many people I’ve talked to have complained that Trump comports himself like a filthy pig, heedless of all needs but his own. Among these needs the paramount one seems to be the need to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of an evil world to begin a new life in the shadows of conformism. This backs up my point that I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that when I hear his drudges parrot the party line—that there should be publicly financed centers of isolationism—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how somebody has to establish a “truth commission” whose charter is to investigate some of Trump’s more flighty tracts. That somebody can be you. In any case, whenever Trump hears that the most uninformed pinheads I’ve ever seen are attacking the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview, Trump puts on his usual kabuki of feigned outrage. In private, however, he secretly supports such activities. Even worse, Trump likes actions that cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I’d say that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Trump that his view that it’s okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the hideous hands of disputatious jargonauts is sheer make-believe. As I expected, Trump was utterly unconvinced.

Courage is what we need to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two clumsy tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern nosism—not politeness, not intellectual flair, not cleverness with words, just courage. And it sometimes takes a lot of courage to look a self-serving nabob of fanaticism in the eye and tell him that I have absolutely no idea why Trump makes such a big fuss over totalism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that I must ask that Trump’s devotees provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity’s future and our role in it. I know they’ll never do that so here’s an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to dismantle the family unit. To change the topic slightly, if Trump is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards.

Trump cannot be tamed by “tolerance” and “accommodation” but is actually spurred on by such gestures. He sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue shattering and ultimately destroying our most precious possessions. Wanting to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don’t need is one thing, but why would anybody possibly want to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that he craves adulation and attendance. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don’t mind, though, I’ll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, Trump somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that the purpose of life is self-gratification. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization.

If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to provide actionable steps people can take to get Trump to damp down the bellicosity of his intimations. I realize my phlegmatic approach to such issues might not elucidate some of my audience, but Trump fears nothing more than the exposure of his motives and activities. That much is crystal clear. But did you know that Trump makes it his job to let egotistical skivers run rampant through the streets? That’s why I’m telling you that he accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he allege I’m narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that society is supposed to be lenient towards the most selfish beatniks I’ve ever seen? If so, then I guess I’m as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. He says he’s going to put our liberties at risk by an alabandical and cullionly rush to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people as soon as our backs are turned. Is he out of his moralistic mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that he keeps saying that his bunco games are Holy Writ. I suggest taking such statements with a grain of salt because the ultimate aim of his publicity stunts is to restructure society as a pyramid with Trump at the top, Trump’s acolytes directly underneath, shabby bozos (especially the out-of-touch type) beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Trump to promote intolerance and paranoia, which makes me realize that despite what he claims, Trump’s disdainful, shiftless smear tactics do not exist to create balance and harmony between yin and yang, between masculine and feminine energies. In fact, quite the opposite is true: We can’t stop Trump overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus.

Trump wants to get me thrown in jail. He can’t cite a specific statute that I’ve violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that Trump desperately wants us to believe that he can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how Trump insists that he has no choice but to collapse the society that sustains us all. His reasoning is that he is a model citizen. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Trump has been offering stiff-necked sensualists a lot of money to fill children’s credulous ears with his quisquiliary deblaterations. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that Trump must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could he manage to tell us that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of “insiders”?

Trump and his hatchet men have put in place the largest and most effective blacklist in the history of our country. The purpose of this blacklist is to rid various strategic organizations of Trump’s enemies and any other independent-minded people who might interfere with Trump’s designs. While such activities are merely the first step towards poisoning the air, water, and soil, what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a shrewish wacko. It’s a fact. Think about how easy it’s become for fork-tongued tin-pot tyrants to seize control of the power structure. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the worst kinds of vilipensive tossers I’ve ever seen speak in order to conceal—or at least to veil—their thoughts, although it might. Rather, it means that Trump has not yet been successful at reaping a harvest of death. Still, give him some time, and I’m sure he’ll figure out how to do something at least that nauseating, probably more so. In any event, Trump anathematizes anyone who might look at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture. That’s self-evident, and even Trump would probably agree with me on that. Even so, he wants nothing less than to win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats. His cultists then wonder, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, there’s not much to be done with overweening, impertinent rabiators who can’t figure out what’s wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that if Trump had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he’d admit that his temeritous conjectures have created a class of dependent supplicants and special interests. Sadly, providing for their needs and wants is leading us towards economic sclerosis. All we can do now is take a strong position on Trump’s bons mots, which, after all, paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures.

Either Trump has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with “facts” that are taken out of context. I can’t make heads or tails of his harangues. I mean, does Trump want to precipitate riots, or doesn’t he? Did it ever occur to him that his refrains, like opium, hashish, or alcohol, keep the canaille in a trance and oblivious of reality? We must definitely ask ourselves questions like that before it’s too late, before Trump gets the opportunity to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to antagonism. You might say, “It is axiomatic that the confusion that he creates is desirable and convenient to our national enemies.” Fine, I agree. But if I said that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements, I’d be a liar. But I’d be being thoroughly honest if I said that Trump says that he has the mandate of Heaven to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of his heart. That’s his unvarying story, and it’s a lie: an extremely wretched and daffy lie. Unfortunately, it’s a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Trump’s surrogates.

Whereas Trump claims that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not, I claim that prudence is no vice. Cowardice—especially his lethargic form of it—is. Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to fight the good fight. At one point, I actually believed that he would stop being so feebleminded. Silly me. On a television program last night I heard one of this country’s top scientists conclude that “Trump has a long, philistinism-infested history of attempts to rub salt into our wounds.” That’s exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.

I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Trump muddy the word “ultrastandardization”. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one’s own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. As a consistently mortified observer of his treatises, I can’t help but want to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. What’s black and white and purple all over? The prose of a blowsy malingerer who has just discovered polemical invective. I’m talking about Trump, of course. In particular, I’m referring to the fact that in a way, I’m glad I’ve experienced firsthand just how small-minded Trump can be. It’s one thing to read about his spitting on sacred icons, but it’s quite another to be subjected personally to his attempts to make me get torn apart by wild dogs. The end.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170160

You should see some of the crazy things people who take Ambien do and say. There are far more dangerous things than pot that are legal- namely prescription painkillers and sleep meds, alcohol, nicotine, etc. But of course making them illegal would destroy multibillion dollar “legal” drug cartels.

New Revelations

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/

http://gawker.com/i-ran-the-c-i-a-now-i-work-for-a-longtime-clinton-ally-1784871887

A FREQUENT WEAPON FOR DEMOCRATS in the 2016 election is to publicly malign those they regard as critics and adversaries as Russia sympathizers, Putin stooges, or outright agents of the Kremlin. To put it mildly, this is not a new tactic in U.S. political discourse, and it’s worth placing it in historical context. That’s particularly true given how many people have now been targeted with this attack.

Strongly insinuating that the GOP nominee, Donald Trump, has nefarious, possibly treasonous allegiances to Moscow has migrated from Clinton-loyal pundits into the principal theme of the Clinton campaign itself. “The depth of Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin is revealing itself by the day,” her website announced yesterday, and vital “questions” must be answered “about Trump’s cozy relationship with Russia.” The Clinton campaign this weekend released a 1-minute video that, over and over, insinuates Trump’s disloyalty in the form of “questions” – complete with menacing pictures of Red Square. Democrats cheered wildly, and really have not stopped cheering, ever since the ex-Acting CIA Director (who, undisclosed by the NYT, now works for a Clinton operative) went to The New York Times to claim “that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

New Emails Appear to Show Clinton Foundation Donors Called In Favors to State Dept

New Emails Appear to Show Clinton Foundation Donors Called In Favors to State Dept
by Chris White | 3:34 pm, August 9th, 2016 230

Hillary Clinton via shutterstock Newly released State Department records, including previously unreleased emails from Huma Abedin, appear to show Clinton Foundation donors calling in favors from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The new documents released on Tuesday were obtained by the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of their Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that seeks information about Abedin’s unique employment arrangement with the State Department. Judicial Watch claims some the documents paint a troubling portrait of then-Secretary of State Clinton possibly giving preferential treatment to top campaign bundlers and Clinton Foundation donors.

For example, an April 2009 email exchange with the subject line “[a] favor…” appears to show longtime Clinton associate Doug Band reaching out to Abedin and Cheryl Mills, writing, “Important to take care of [name redacted].”

Abedin responds almost immediately, writing, “We have all had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.”

In a separate exchange a few days later, Band emails Abedin and Mills again, this time urgently requesting help putting Gilbert Chagoury in contact with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Abedin replies a few hours later, promising to speak with the “substance person” about the request. Band then responds again, informing Abedin that she should contact the person now, writing, “This is very important.”

It is unclear from the emails exactly why Chagoury needed to speak with anyone at the State Department. Although, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch, Chagoury is reportedly a very wealthy Nigerian-Lebanese businessman and friend of former President Bill Clinton. He is a mega-donor who, according to the Wall Street Journal, pledged between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. ABC News reported that he made another $1 billion pledge to the Clinton Global Initiative.

According to a 2010 PBS Frontline/World investigation, Chagoury also has somewhat of a checkered past. He was previously convicted in a money laundering scheme that allegedly helped a former Nigerian dictator stash stolen money in various bank accounts in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and elsewhere. However, his conviction was expunged in 2000 after he agreed to a plea deal that required him to return approximately $66 million to the Nigerian government.

“Clinton’s top aides’ favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State,” Judicial Watch wrote in a statement accompanying the release of the documents.

The statement goes on to cite a letter from Clinton to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin from January 2009. The letter states, in part:

“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….”

In addition to contact with individuals connected to the Clinton Foundation, the newly released emails also show Clinton was contacted by a fundraiser/bundler connected with her 2008 presidential campaign. In April 2009, fundraiser Lara Moresky contacted Clinton directly through email to request help getting someone a position at the State Department.

Moresky wrote that she understood the hiring process was moving slowly, but she “was hoping you (Clinton) might intervene to make sure [name redacted] was taken seriously and considered for a proper responsible position.”

Clinton forwarded the email request to Abedin, telling her to please help the unidentified individual. Clinton also appeared to request that Abedin keep her in the loop, writing, “Let me know.”

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-batch-hillary-clinton-emails/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JW-v-State-Huma-production-9-unpublished-00684.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2010/01/nigeria-chasing-the-ghosts-of-a-corrupt-regime.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/no-fly-terror-list-includes-big-donor-clinton-initiative/story?id=9791786

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_clintondonor_20081218.html

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JW-v-State-Abedin-production-9-00684-pg-255-1.pdf

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-212/

Fmr. CIA Agent: Obama Displayed ‘High Level’ of Deception On $400 Million Iranian Payment

Melania Trump May Have Committed Visa Fraud, Now She’s Flat Out Lying About It

White Suspect Allegedly Killed Black Man After 911 Call About ‘Hoodlums’

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/no-fly-terror-list-includes-big-donor-clinton-initiative/story?id=9791786

A Nigerian businessman who has been a significant financial supporter for former President Bill Clinton was stopped from boarding a private jet last month in New Jersey after law enforcement authorities discovered he had been put on the U.S. government’s recently expanded terrorist no-fly list, according to a report of the incident provided to ABCNews.com.

The businessman, Gilbert Chagoury, 64, was prevented from boarding the jet at Teterboro airport in New Jersey on Jan. 15, according to the report. Law enforcement authorities reported they ultimately obtained a “waiver” from Washington to permit Chagoury to fly out of the country to France.

According to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the no-fly list is designed to “keep known terrorists off planes.” The TSA website says it works with intelligence and law enforcement partners to compile the list and has a “dedicated staff to review and scrub the existing No-Fly list and ensure all nominees meet the standing criteria.”
Chagoury with Bill Clinton at a 2005 Banquet
The TSA declined to comment on why or when Chagoury had been placed on the terror no-fly list or who provided the waiver to allow him to board his flight. and referred ABC News to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) for comment.

A spokesperson for the FBI’s TSC also declined to comment about Chagoury, saying the TSC never comments on individual names on the no-fly list.

The spokesperson did say the list is “fluid” and individuals may be moved up or downgraded at any time based on the current threat environment, but “an individual’s social status, financial means, and political affiliations are not considered” in an individual being moved up or down the list.

Chagoury’s son, Gilbert Jr., confirmed that his father had been stopped by the FBI at Teterboro. He said he would ask his father to call ABC News for further comment but the senior Chagoury has yet to respond.

A Clinton spokesman, Matt McKenna, said the former President’s office was unaware of the incident until contacted by ABCNews.com. “We had no role whatsoever” in helping Chagoury get the waiver, said McKenna. “Nor would we ever,” he added.

Chagoury is a controversial figure in Africa and Europe but it is the first time there has been any suggestion of alleged ties to terrorism.

Described as a billionaire, Chagoury runs an industrial conglomerate in Nigeria, the Chagoury Group, and had ties to a former corrupt president there.

In 2009 Chagoury pledged $1 billion via the Chagoury Group as part of his commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative, according to the Global Initiative website. Chagoury also recently donated more than $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a list of donors made public by the foundation in December. Members of Chagoury’s family were contributors to the 2008 Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Chagoury Donated to 1996 Clinton Campaign

According to the Wall Street Journal, Chagoury’s ties to the former president date to 1996 when he donated money “to support then-President Clinton’s 1996 re-election effort, and later helped the former president land a lucrative speaking fee.”
The money for Clinton’s re-election helped to fund a get-out-the-vote effort, which legally can accept contributions from a non-US resident.

Law enforcement authorities say Chagoury was a “positive match” to the Gilbert Chagoury on the terrorism no fly list, based on his date of birth. He was traveling on a British passport which does not require a US visa to enter the country.

According to the law enforcement report, Chagoury also is named on a second watch list called, TIDE, the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center.

According to the Center website, the TIDE list is the US government’s “central repository on international terrorist identities.” Federal agencies nominate individuals for the TIDE list based on possible connections to terrorist organizations or terrorist financing, according to the website.

The report on the incident said a private jet owned by Chagoury was at Teterboro for repairs and he was attempting to leave on a second jet, a Dassault Falcon 900EX.

Chagoury, five passengers and two crew members were all detained by TSA officers who called in agents from the FBI and Customs and Border Patrol.
Chagoury with Bill Clinton at a 2005 Banquet
After being questioned for several hours by the FBI, the crew and passengers were released without incident, according to the report. By the time Chagoury’s “waiver” to fly was processed, authorities said, the repairs had been finished on his jet and he departed for Paris on that aircraft.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Chagoury, of Lebanese descent, has also been a financial supporter of Christian politicians and religious leaders in Lebanon.

The paper also cited reports that Chagoury had been the subject of “government investigations into suspected bribery by Western companies that do business in Nigeria.”

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/latest-trump-predicts-big-growth-economic-plan-41230183

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/disgraced-illinois-gov-rod-blagojevich-appears-court-video/story?id=41230275

http://abcnews.go.com/US/grand-jury-recommends-fixes-charges-inmate-dies-oklahoma/story?id=41215799

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/dc-hospital-evacuates-nicu-dangerous-bacteria-found/story?id=41248445

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jogger-killings-massachusetts-nyc-related-cops/story?id=41233840

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-2nd-amendment-folks-stop-clintons-supreme-court/story?id=41239648

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-2nd-amendment-folks-stop-clintons-supreme-court/story?id=41239648

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-batch-hillary-clinton-emails/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-huma-production-9-unpublished-00684-2/

Huma Abedin Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor Demands on State Department

(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today released 296 pages of State Department records, of which 44 email exchanges were not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 171 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department). These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department

The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.

Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

Chagoury is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. According to a 2010 investigation by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.

Clinton’s top aides’ favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State. For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin:

“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….”

As preparation for Hillary’s upcoming visit to Asia, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, on Feb. 11, 2009, sends Hillary a copy of his upcoming testimony before Congress in which he would condemn any U.S. efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers. Several days later, Hillary asked Abedin about Roach possibly “connecting” with her while she was in Beijing: “I forwarded you my email to him about connecting in Beijing. Can he come to the embassy or other event?” Morgan Stanley is a long-time financial supporter of the Clintons.

The emails also reveal that Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton’s daily schedule, a presumably sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room. An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary’s “day book binders.” Abedin replies: “Yes. It’s on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in the lobby.Thx.” Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.

The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn advised Clinton on NATO and piracy. Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone for a position at State. Clinton directed Abedin to follow up and “help” the applicant and told Abedin to “let me know” about the job issue.

The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named “Justin” (presumably Justin Cooper, a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton’s hdr22@clintonmail.com address.

This is the ninth set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin.

The documents were produced under a court order in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) requiring the agency to produce “all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013, using a ‘non-state’.gov email address.”

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

In June, Judicial Watch uncovered two batches (here and here) of new Clinton email records through court-ordered discovery.

Twice in May, Judicial Watch uncovered new Clinton emails, including emails that show Clinton knew about the security risk of her BlackBerry (see here and here).

Recently, Judicial Watch released other State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages), with newly discovered Clinton emails also going back as far as January 2009.

In March, Judicial Watch released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails. Those emails contained more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure BlackBerrys.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement suggesting all “work or potentially work-related emails” were provided to the State Department.

###

Sign Up for Updates!

Subscribe

Huma Abedin Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor Demands on State Department

(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today released 296 pages of State Department records, of which 44 email exchanges were not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 171 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department). These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department

The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.

Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

Chagoury is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. According to a 2010 investigation by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.

Clinton’s top aides’ favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State. For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin:

“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….”

As preparation for Hillary’s upcoming visit to Asia, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, on Feb. 11, 2009, sends Hillary a copy of his upcoming testimony before Congress in which he would condemn any U.S. efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers. Several days later, Hillary asked Abedin about Roach possibly “connecting” with her while she was in Beijing: “I forwarded you my email to him about connecting in Beijing. Can he come to the embassy or other event?” Morgan Stanley is a long-time financial supporter of the Clintons.

The emails also reveal that Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton’s daily schedule, a presumably sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room. An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary’s “day book binders.” Abedin replies: “Yes. It’s on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in the lobby.Thx.” Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.

The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn advised Clinton on NATO and piracy. Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone for a position at State. Clinton directed Abedin to follow up and “help” the applicant and told Abedin to “let me know” about the job issue.

The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named “Justin” (presumably Justin Cooper, a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton’s hdr22@clintonmail.com address.

This is the ninth set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin.

The documents were produced under a court order in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) requiring the agency to produce “all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013, using a ‘non-state’.gov email address.”

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

In June, Judicial Watch uncovered two batches (here and here) of new Clinton email records through court-ordered discovery.

Twice in May, Judicial Watch uncovered new Clinton emails, including emails that show Clinton knew about the security risk of her BlackBerry (see here and here).

Recently, Judicial Watch released other State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages), with newly discovered Clinton emails also going back as far as January 2009.

In March, Judicial Watch released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails. Those emails contained more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure BlackBerrys.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement suggesting all “work or potentially work-related emails” were provided to the State Department.

###

Sign Up for Updates!

Subscribe

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-produced-state-department-clinton-email-shows-concerned-records/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-state-department-inspector-general-investigation-records-related-hillary-clinton-emails/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-reveal-clinton-knew-about-security-risk-of-private-blackberry-avoided-use-of-secure-phone/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-more-hillary-clinton-emails-withheld-from-state-department/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-5th-production-huma-emails-00684-3/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-6th-production-huma-emails-00684/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-265/

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58169516

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/opinion/the-great-affluence-fallacy.html

“In 18th-century America , colonial society and Native American society sat side by side. The former was buddingly commercial; the latter was communal and tribal. As time went by, the settlers from Europe noticed something: No Indians were defecting to join colonial society, but many whites were defecting to live in the Native American one.

This struck them as strange. Colonial society was richer and more advanced. And yet people were voting with their feet the other way.

The colonials occasionally tried to welcome Native American children into their midst, but they couldn’t persuade them to stay. Benjamin Franklin observed the phenomenon in 1753, writing, “When an Indian child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian ramble with them, there is no persuading him ever to return.”

During the wars with the Indians, many European settlers were taken prisoner and held within Indian tribes. After a while, they had plenty of chances to escape and return, and yet they did not. In fact, when they were “rescued,” they fled and hid from their rescuers.

Sometimes the Indians tried to forcibly return the colonials in a prisoner swap, and still the colonials refused to go. In one case, the Shawanese Indians were compelled to tie up some European women in order to ship them back. After they were returned, the women escaped the colonial towns and ran back to the Indians.

Even as late as 1782, the pattern was still going strong. Hector de Crèvecoeur wrote, “Thousands of Europeans are Indians, and we have no examples of even one of those aborigines having from choice become European.”

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58125911

True, democratic socialism is alive and well.

It already exists and has done so in both the 20th and 21st century.

The kibbutz system in Israel.

Furtherore, the kibbutz sector has the highest (per capita) ratio of university graduates in the country and produces more than twice the national GDP level.

It also represents a high level of the Israeli tech sector and innovation.

Yes, there were initial concerns (back in the 1950’s and 60’s) that the kibbutz socialist based system would limit-reduce human characteristics such as individual motivation, drive, innovation, creativity, etc – however, this has not been the case at all.

In fact quite the opposite has occurred.

When all the basic needs of humans are collectively met, combined with a strong sense of belonging, inclusivity, and a supportive, zero stress, social environment…people are then psychologically free (and at ease) to function as productive, creative members of society.

Also note, crime rates within the kibbutz system are extremely low.

Violent crime is virtually non existant.
\
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58126234

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/

Here is another view by a journalist named below:

“As the United States moves forward in our presidential election this fall, it feels like many voters are more undecided than ever. Last week, the GOP nominated former reality TV star Donald Trump at their Republican National Convention, while this week, the Democratic party nominated Hillary Clinton — though neither won without some disruption. Republican delegates contested Trump’s nomination, as did Democratic delegates, and both saw their fair share of protests outside their conventions. So what should you do if you want to vote outside the two major parties? Well, these Jill Stein and Gary Johnson highlights will help you pick between the two non-mainstream candidates if you’re considering a third-party vote.

It’s no secret that Trump and Clinton both polled at record-breaking lows this year regarding favorability as far as presidential candidates go. Politicians and lawmakers within the GOP tried to stop their own candidate for months, and Sanders delegates and supporters protested Clinton’s nomination over the course of the Democratic convention. Perhaps this is the year Americans are starting to look outside of the two-party system for their candidate, and in some ways, that can be attributed to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign calling for political establishment reform.

Americans are certainly looking to third-party candidates this year, with Johnson, and Stein polling at around 3 percent over the latter half of the month of July. The candidates need 15 percent voter support to make it on the debate stage this fall, and it wouldn’t be a bad idea to hear what they have to say. So what do these third-party candidates have to offer?

On Education

Stein’s platform for 2016 focuses on climate change and accessible, affordable education. Following suit with Sanders’ revolutionary policy platforms, Stein wants to eradicate student loan debt and make sure that education is tuition-free from preschool through undergrad.

Johnson’s platform on education would include abolishing the Department of Education, suggesting that individual states funding education without federal restrictions and guidelines will have more money to do so.

On Climate Change

Climate change and the threats it poses the planet are central to Stein’s platform. Her platform calls for an end to fracking and offshore drilling, and a call to protect our water supplies. Stein has also called for transitioning to renewable energy over the next 14 years and creating jobs in the process.

According to the Seattle Times, Johnson believes that humans have “probably” had an impact on climate change. Johnson also believes in the federal government’s push to protect the environment but has also pushed for punitive actions against polluters, rather than within the market.

On Military Assistance for Israel

Stein’s stance on foreign policy includes opposing U.S. military aid to Israel. She told PBS that this monetary assistance is used to “fund a government which is basically committing war crimes against the Palestinian people, violating, violating international law with the occupations.” According to her presidential platform, Stein believes in a foreign policy “based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights,” not on war.

When it comes down to U.S. support in Israel, Johnson reportedly believes in cutting to Israel. In 2011, he called the state an ally to the U.S. and suggested that “it’s a mistake for us to think that we’re going to dictate to them actions when it comes to Palestinian statehood.”

When it comes time this fall, whether you vote Democratic, Republican, or third-party, whether you vote your conscience, or simply to stop Trump, it’s OK to learn about the third-party candidates who are campaigning through the next few months.”

Erin Corbett is a Massachusetts-based journalist, originally from Chicago. Her writing interests focus on policing, global politics, and reproductive justice. She believes in intersectional feminism, and loves a slice of deep dish pizza.\

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58125634

They did the same with Nader, blaming him that Bush and Clinton lead the way into the Iraq. They will go even further and will call Jill Stein a spoiler. Turn the silly argument around and it becomes at least more true. Clinton II had the weakest pollings against theDonald, Clinton II only won the primaries because of the mediatime she got, the superdelegats, votersupression, closed primaries,…. not many at all want her as president and she got support from the DNC (see emails), CNN, corporate world… and so on.

If the Donald becomes President, then because of ClintonII . If she loves her country, she should step back.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58125648

Trump’s insurgency is still rolling strong. I already see how they will try to quell this one. 2 of the 3 debates planned are on major Football nights. Hopefully the American people will see through this ruse.

— hide signature —

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58125620

Was sometimes infront of the Iraqinvasion, the world was split into the willings and the enemy and the big mediaoutlets of the land of the free played well trained the drums of war. Majority of citizens were frightened and held meetings to sing the national anthem and to feel strong together in patriotism supported with Foxnews newest stinking mushroomcloud. But it took BushII more time then expected to get into the Iraq, so there was the real menace that the fearlevel would fall. One magician came up with the idea of the freedom fries, which seemed perfect to use in that context. So the medialords and their lemmings inspired the folk to feel deep anger against those French people, inclusive French wine. Maybe there was even an “Freedom fries” official talkingpointlist for the msm, like in the case of Snowden or advanced interrogation technics or maybe soon spoiler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

For me that is dangerous “journalism “ and using the word freedom fries in that context was bizarre, like it feels bizarre to respond to “No more wars” with “USA””USA”

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/reply?parent=58125620&quote=yes

Thanks. I see that Assange was on CNN of all places and talking about the leaks coming from within the Democratic Party- not from Russia. He also talked about a new set of leaks- do you know what this is about? Curiously enough, the guy who was accused of giving the leaks from within the party was mysteriously murdered two weeks ago.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58169983

New Emails Appear to Show Clinton Foundation Donors Called In Favors to State Dept

New Emails Appear to Show Clinton Foundation Donors Called In Favors to State Dept

by Chris White | 3:34 pm, August 9th, 2016 230

Hillary Clinton via shutterstock Newly released State Department records, including previously unreleased emails from Huma Abedin, appear to show Clinton Foundation donors calling in favors from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The new documents released on Tuesday were obtained by the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of their Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that seeks information about Abedin’s unique employment arrangement with the State Department. Judicial Watch claims some the documents paint a troubling portrait of then-Secretary of State Clinton possibly giving preferential treatment to top campaign bundlers and Clinton Foundation donors.

For example, an April 2009 email exchange with the subject line “[a] favor…” appears to show longtime Clinton associate Doug Band reaching out to Abedin and Cheryl Mills, writing, “Important to take care of [name redacted].”

Abedin responds almost immediately, writing, “We have all had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.”

In a separate exchange a few days later, Band emails Abedin and Mills again, this time urgently requesting help putting Gilbert Chagoury in contact with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Abedin replies a few hours later, promising to speak with the “substance person” about the request. Band then responds again, informing Abedin that she should contact the person now, writing, “This is very important.”

It is unclear from the emails exactly why Chagoury needed to speak with anyone at the State Department. Although, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch, Chagoury is reportedly a very wealthy Nigerian-Lebanese businessman and friend of former President Bill Clinton. He is a mega-donor who, according to the Wall Street Journal, pledged between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. ABC News reported that he made another $1 billion pledge to the Clinton Global Initiative.

According to a 2010 PBS Frontline/World investigation, Chagoury also has somewhat of a checkered past. He was previously convicted in a money laundering scheme that allegedly helped a former Nigerian dictator stash stolen money in various bank accounts in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and elsewhere. However, his conviction was expunged in 2000 after he agreed to a plea deal that required him to return approximately $66 million to the Nigerian government.

“Clinton’s top aides’ favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State,” Judicial Watch wrote in a statement accompanying the release of the documents.

The statement goes on to cite a letter from Clinton to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin from January 2009. The letter states, in part:

“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….”

In addition to contact with individuals connected to the Clinton Foundation, the newly released emails also show Clinton was contacted by a fundraiser/bundler connected with her 2008 presidential campaign. In April 2009, fundraiser Lara Moresky contacted Clinton directly through email to request help getting someone a position at the State Department.

Moresky wrote that she understood the hiring process was moving slowly, but she “was hoping you (Clinton) might intervene to make sure [name redacted] was taken seriously and considered for a proper responsible position.”

Clinton forwarded the email request to Abedin, telling her to please help the unidentified individual. Clinton also appeared to request that Abedin keep her in the loop, writing, “Let me know.”

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-batch-hillary-clinton-emails/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JW-v-State-Huma-production-9-unpublished-00684.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2010/01/nigeria-chasing-the-ghosts-of-a-corrupt-regime.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/no-fly-terror-list-includes-big-donor-clinton-initiative/story?id=9791786

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_clintondonor_20081218.html

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JW-v-State-Abedin-production-9-00684-pg-255-1.pdf

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-212/

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/no-fly-terror-list-includes-big-donor-clinton-initiative/story?id=9791786

A Nigerian businessman who has been a significant financial supporter for former President Bill Clinton was stopped from boarding a private jet last month in New Jersey after law enforcement authorities discovered he had been put on the U.S. government’s recently expanded terrorist no-fly list, according to a report of the incident provided to ABCNews.com.

The businessman, Gilbert Chagoury, 64, was prevented from boarding the jet at Teterboro airport in New Jersey on Jan. 15, according to the report. Law enforcement authorities reported they ultimately obtained a “waiver” from Washington to permit Chagoury to fly out of the country to France.

According to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the no-fly list is designed to “keep known terrorists off planes.” The TSA website says it works with intelligence and law enforcement partners to compile the list and has a “dedicated staff to review and scrub the existing No-Fly list and ensure all nominees meet the standing criteria.”

Chagoury with Bill Clinton at a 2005 Banquet

The TSA declined to comment on why or when Chagoury had been placed on the terror no-fly list or who provided the waiver to allow him to board his flight. and referred ABC News to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) for comment.

A spokesperson for the FBI’s TSC also declined to comment about Chagoury, saying the TSC never comments on individual names on the no-fly list.

The spokesperson did say the list is “fluid” and individuals may be moved up or downgraded at any time based on the current threat environment, but “an individual’s social status, financial means, and political affiliations are not considered” in an individual being moved up or down the list.

Chagoury’s son, Gilbert Jr., confirmed that his father had been stopped by the FBI at Teterboro. He said he would ask his father to call ABC News for further comment but the senior Chagoury has yet to respond.

A Clinton spokesman, Matt McKenna, said the former President’s office was unaware of the incident until contacted by ABCNews.com. “We had no role whatsoever” in helping Chagoury get the waiver, said McKenna. “Nor would we ever,” he added.

Chagoury is a controversial figure in Africa and Europe but it is the first time there has been any suggestion of alleged ties to terrorism.

Described as a billionaire, Chagoury runs an industrial conglomerate in Nigeria, the Chagoury Group, and had ties to a former corrupt president there.

In 2009 Chagoury pledged $1 billion via the Chagoury Group as part of his commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative, according to the Global Initiative website. Chagoury also recently donated more than $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a list of donors made public by the foundation in December. Members of Chagoury’s family were contributors to the 2008 Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Chagoury Donated to 1996 Clinton Campaign

According to the Wall Street Journal, Chagoury’s ties to the former president date to 1996 when he donated money “to support then-President Clinton’s 1996 re-election effort, and later helped the former president land a lucrative speaking fee.”

The money for Clinton’s re-election helped to fund a get-out-the-vote effort, which legally can accept contributions from a non-US resident.

Law enforcement authorities say Chagoury was a “positive match” to the Gilbert Chagoury on the terrorism no fly list, based on his date of birth. He was traveling on a British passport which does not require a US visa to enter the country.

According to the law enforcement report, Chagoury also is named on a second watch list called, TIDE, the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center.

According to the Center website, the TIDE list is the US government’s “central repository on international terrorist identities.” Federal agencies nominate individuals for the TIDE list based on possible connections to terrorist organizations or terrorist financing, according to the website.

The report on the incident said a private jet owned by Chagoury was at Teterboro for repairs and he was attempting to leave on a second jet, a Dassault Falcon 900EX.

Chagoury, five passengers and two crew members were all detained by TSA officers who called in agents from the FBI and Customs and Border Patrol.

Chagoury with Bill Clinton at a 2005 Banquet

After being questioned for several hours by the FBI, the crew and passengers were released without incident, according to the report. By the time Chagoury’s “waiver” to fly was processed, authorities said, the repairs had been finished on his jet and he departed for Paris on that aircraft.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Chagoury, of Lebanese descent, has also been a financial supporter of Christian politicians and religious leaders in Lebanon.

The paper also cited reports that Chagoury had been the subject of “government investigations into suspected bribery by Western companies that do business in Nigeria.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-batch-hillary-clinton-emails/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-huma-production-9-unpublished-00684-2/

Huma Abedin Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor Demands on State Department

(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today released 296 pages of State Department records, of which 44 email exchanges were not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 171 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department). These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department

The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.

Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

Chagoury is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. According to a 2010 investigation by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.

Clinton’s top aides’ favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State. For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin:

“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….”

As preparation for Hillary’s upcoming visit to Asia, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, on Feb. 11, 2009, sends Hillary a copy of his upcoming testimony before Congress in which he would condemn any U.S. efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers. Several days later, Hillary asked Abedin about Roach possibly “connecting” with her while she was in Beijing: “I forwarded you my email to him about connecting in Beijing. Can he come to the embassy or other event?” Morgan Stanley is a long-time financial supporter of the Clintons.

The emails also reveal that Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton’s daily schedule, a presumably sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room. An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary’s “day book binders.” Abedin replies: “Yes. It’s on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in the lobby.Thx.” Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.

The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn advised Clinton on NATO and piracy. Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone for a position at State. Clinton directed Abedin to follow up and “help” the applicant and told Abedin to “let me know” about the job issue.

The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named “Justin” (presumably Justin Cooper, a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton’s hdr22@clintonmail.com address.

This is the ninth set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin.

The documents were produced under a court order in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) requiring the agency to produce “all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013, using a ‘non-state’.gov email address.”

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

In June, Judicial Watch uncovered two batches (here and here) of new Clinton email records through court-ordered discovery.

Twice in May, Judicial Watch uncovered new Clinton emails, including emails that show Clinton knew about the security risk of her BlackBerry (see here and here).

Recently, Judicial Watch released other State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages), with newly discovered Clinton emails also going back as far as January 2009.

In March, Judicial Watch released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails. Those emails contained more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure BlackBerrys.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement suggesting all “work or potentially work-related emails” were provided to the State Department.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-produced-state-department-clinton-email-shows-concerned-records/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-state-department-inspector-general-investigation-records-related-hillary-clinton-emails/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-reveal-clinton-knew-about-security-risk-of-private-blackberry-avoided-use-of-secure-phone/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-more-hillary-clinton-emails-withheld-from-state-department/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-5th-production-huma-emails-00684-3/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-6th-production-huma-emails-00684/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-265/