The Alternative After a Bern-Out: The Green Party’s Jill

4/29/2016

0 Comments

 

Third-party presidential candidate Jill Stein. (Gage Skidmore/ CC BY-SA 2.0)

By Bill Boyarsky ------ Truthdig

With Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign falling short, his followers have limited choices. Many would support Hillary Clinton. But the cadre of activists and political newcomers, including the young who have flocked to him, may not accept that choice. Perhaps they’ll retreat from the 2016 election battle. Perhaps they’ll find another candidate.

They would be welcomed by Dr. Jill Stein. The physician-activist is favored to win the Green Party presidential nomination this year after heading the party’s ticket in 2012.

“The whole reason for having an independent third party that cannot be silenced is there are 25 percent of Bernie’s voters who are not going into that dark night to vote for the No. 1 cheerleader for Wal-Mart, for Wall Street, for an endless war,” Stein said in a telephone interview this week. “They are looking for another place to hang their hat.”

Listen to Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer’s February interview with Stein here.
​
Whether hers is a winning place is questionable. In 2012 Stein received 469,501 votes, or 0.3 percent, according to the Federal Elections Commission. In the current election, the Green Party is on the ballot so far in 20 states comprising 55 percent of the population. Stein said the party “is aiming to get on the ballot in every state.” She is campaigning hard, traveling around the country for support for the Green nominating convention in Houston, set for Aug. 4-7.

But winning or losing is not what’s most important in discussing the Stein campaign. Stein is providing a place for the left to engage in a serious argument about liberal solutions to the nation’s problems that have been ignored by the two major parties.

I told her I’ve written about police, racism, homelessness, the decline of labor unions and the difficulties of the poor. I don’t see these issues reflected in the presidential campaign, except when there is some especially horrific police shooting, and then Black Lives Matter is cautiously brought up. She agreed.

I was most interested in the portion of her platform designed to create jobs, including blue-collar occupations that have been ravaged by overseas competition, mechanization and the loss of trade union power. She has offered a jobs program that includes a “Green New Deal,” in which fossil fuel-powered plants, homes and transportation would instead be powered by solar, wind and water.

Stein has proposed other ways of providing jobs. One is to strengthen unions. “The decline of the unions and the decline of the Democratic Party have gone hand in hand,” she told me.

It must start with the president. “You can start by getting out there on the picket lines,” she said. “If there was support coming for striking workers from the White House, it would be mind-boggling.” In addition, she would press for legislation removing current restrictions on union organizing.

Like Sanders, she would get rid of the free trade agreements the United States has with 20 countries, which she said cost many jobs.

“A President Stein would renegotiate them?” I asked.  “That’s right,” she said. “Slow them down and reverse them, even before they are renegotiated, based on (countries’) violations of human rights, and environmental and labor standards.”

Stein’s solution to the decline in manufacturing, which has shuttered factories across the country, includes the formation of worker cooperatives—enterprises owned and run by workers. These could replace abandoned plants.

She said: “Now, if workers want to start a cooperative, it is an uphill climb to get the financing, to get the technical assistance, educational programs and so on. There should be systematic development so they can get the financing they need, the technical know-how in order to develop.”

She cited the Mondragon Corp. in the Basque region of Spain. It employs more than 80,000 people in finance, industry, retail and knowledge-based, tech-related enterprises. It is the seventh-largest Spanish company and a presence overseas.

In the United States, this kind of organization would be part of an effort to create millions of jobs through initiatives that would be financed with federal funds but locally controlled by community organizations. A 50-percent cut in arms spending would help finance this.

And Stein has other ideas.  “Stay tuned,” she said. “We are still developing the how-to. We are focused on the broad outlines.”

Of all of Stein’s ideas, the most intriguing is the Green New Deal, modeled on Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.  “There would be a wide variety of jobs,” she said. “We’d declare a state of emergency, a climate emergency and an economic emergency. When Pearl Harbor was bombed, we declared a state of emergency, and we transformed the economy.”

Stein has a plan.  “Our aim will be to transform the economy into clean energy by 2030, 15 years to transform our energy supply,“ she said. Along with this, she said, would come a “healthy sustainable food supply; an energy efficient transportation system, which includes safe walking and biking paths, a major health transformation. This pays for itself when you include massive improvements in public health.”
It would take a lot of labor to build and maintain this green infrastructure, both in the public and private sectors. Government and new green companies would provide jobs. Job seekers would find vacancies posted at their local employment offices. Financing would come from the government, much of it from Stein’s 50-percent reduction in arms spending.

Her ideas are supported by a study by Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson; University of California, Berkeley, researcher Mark Delucchi; and other scientists. Their study is published in the online edition of Energy and Environmental Sciences. They advocate a complete shift to renewables—hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal and even the tides. It would, they say, combat climate change, eliminate air pollution deaths, create jobs and stabilize energy prices. Washington state, they noted, is well on its way to converting to renewable energy sources, as is California.

Traditionalists write this off as dreaming, as do the oil and coal industries. But as I watched a solar-powered plane fly over San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge on a round-the-world flight recently and see electric cars on the road, green energy looks more like the future than a dream.
​
Jill Stein’s presidential campaign is making such a future part of the 2016 campaign debate.

Please read more about Jill Stein's Presidential Campaign and her proposed programs for this country:
​
Presidential Candidate Dr. Jill Stein:
Chris Hedges Supports Dr. Jill Stein for President
Jill Stein's Platform More Viable Than Bernie's
Jill Stein for President
Jill Stein deserves your vote
Jill Stein's sensible foreign policy
Jill Stein deserves to be heard
Jill Stein is Running For President

Also read about the dysfunctional political system in this country...
​
​Adding independent voices to the Presidential debate
​a presidential election devoid of hope for improvement
voting against our own best interests
do not vote for a democrat nor for a republican

very difficult to understand...

4/24/2016

0 Comments

The Big Four in Saudi Arabia’s Government -- photo from NYTimes

by E.L. Christianson Jr.

If congress was to pass a law wherein there would be no effect on parties who had no involvement in the subject matter contained in the new law, how could those parties object.  

On the other hand, if certain parties lobbied very hard and even went so far as to threaten retaliation if a certain law is passed then it is easy to believe that they believe the subject material of the new law will effect them very seriously.

Such is the case with the congress attempting to pass a law that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.  If in actual fact, they had no role in the attacks, it is very hard to comprehend the Saudi government's threats to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets as a retaliatory action.

On the other hand, if the Saudi government knows that it did have a role in the attacks, we can easily see that they would not want this law to pass.  The very fact of the Saudi government's efforts to lobby against this new law being passed speaks volumes as a confession that they do know something and that what they know would be incriminating if explored in a court of law in this country.

From that perspective, it is not difficult to understand at all.

In view of all of that, what is going on in the Obama administration?  What can be the motivation for lobbying against passage of the new law?  Do they not want the truth to be revealed?  Do they already know the truth?

The Obama administration cannot be seriously worried about the Saudi government selling $750 billion in treasury securities.  Most likely this is a hollow threat.  Such a sell-off would be difficult to pull-off.  Not everyone could or would make such a purchase.   Such a purchase would be at discounted prices and would end up hurting the Saudi economy.  Additionally, they need us... who else would be selling them all of the that military equipment they use to bombard Yemen back to the stone age?  And, as the world switches to 'renewable' energy, they need to hang on to us, their 'best friend'.

​Saudi officials have long denied that the kingdom had any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and the 9/11 Commission found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.” But critics have noted that the commission’s narrow wording left open the possibility that less senior officials or parts of the Saudi government could have played a role. Suspicions have lingered, partly because of the conclusions of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks that cited some evidence that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot.

Those conclusions, contained in 28 pages of the report, still have not been released publicly.

The dispute comes as bipartisan criticism is growing in Congress about Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, for decades a crucial American ally in the Middle East and half of a partnership that once received little scrutiny from lawmakers. Last week, two senators introduced a resolution that would put restrictions on American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which have expanded during the Obama administration.

Families of the Sept. 11 victims have used the courts to try to hold members of the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks and charities liable because of what the plaintiffs charged was Saudi financial support for terrorism. These efforts have largely been stymied, in part because of a 1976 law that gives foreign nations some immunity from lawsuits in American courts.

The Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits.

After all of these years, it is well past time for the truth to come out, and that's the truth !!!

Washington Launches Its Attack Against BRICS

4/23/2016

0 Comments

 

BRICS leaders (From L) India Prime minister Singh, President of the People’s Republic of China Jinping, South Africa's President Zuma, Brazil's President Rousseff and Russian President Putin, pose for a photo in Durban on March 27, 2013. (AFP/Alexander Joe)

By Paul Craig Roberts --- From Opednews:

Having removed the reformist President of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Washington is now disposing of the reformist President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff.
​
Washington used a federal judge to order Argentina to sacrifice its debt restructuring program in order to pay US vulture funds the full value of defaulted Argentine bonds that the vulture funds had bought for a few pennies on the dollar. These vultures were called "creditors" who had made "loans" regardless of the fact that they were not creditors and had made no loans. They were opportunists after easy money and were used by Washington to get rid of a reformist government.

President Kirchner resisted and, thus, she had to go. Washington concocted a story that Kirchner covered up an alleged Iranian bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994. This implausible fantasy, for which there is no evidence of Iranian involvement, was fed to one of Washington's agents in the state prosecutor's office, and a dubious event of 22 years ago was used to clear Kirchner out of the way of the American looting of Argentina.

In Brazil, Washington has used corruption insinuations to get President Rousseff impeached by the lower house. Evidence is not necessary, just allegations. It is no different from "Iranian nukes," Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," Assad's "use of chemical weapons," or in Rousseff's case merely insinuations. The Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, notes that Rousseff "hasn't been accused of anything." The American-backed elites are simply using impeachment to remove a president who they cannot defeat electorally.

In short, this is Washington's move against the BRICS. Washington is moving to put into political power a rightwing party that Washington controls in order to terminate Brazil's growing relationships with China and Russia.

The great irony is that the impeachment bill was presided over by the corrupt lower house speaker, Eduardo Cunha, who was recently discovered to have stashed millions of dollars in secret Swiss bank accounts (perhaps his pay-off from Washington) and who lied under oath when he denied having foreign bank accounts. You can read the sordid story here. Kirchner and Rousseff's "crimes" are their efforts to have the governments of Argentina and Brazil represent the Argentine and Brazilian peoples rather than the elites and Wall Street.  In Washington these are serious offenses as Washington uses the elites to control South American countries. Whenever Latin Americans elect a government that represents them, Washington overthrows the government or assassinates the president. Washington is close to returning Venezuela to the control of the Spanish elite allied with Washington. The presidents of Ecuador and Bolivia are also targeted. One reason Washington will not permit its British lapdog to honor the asylum Ecuador granted to Julian Assange is that Washington expects to have its own agent back in as President of Ecuador, at which time Assange's asylum will be repealed. Washington has always blocked reform in Latin America. Latin American peoples will remain American serfs until they elect governments by such large majorities that the governments can exile the traitorous elites, close the US embassies, and expel all US corporations. Every Latin American country that has an American presence has no future other than serfdom.

by E.L. Christianson Jr. Related information regarding the contest for dominance, China now has the gold backed Yuan.   The U.S. has the paper dollar backed by 'paper' or more correctly stated, 'nothing'.  In projecting the future, Demand for the U.S. dollar and U.S. debt would drop like a rock, and prices on the things that we buy every day would soar.  At that point you could forget about cheap gasoline or cheap Chinese imports.  Our entire way of life depends on the U.S. dollar being the primary reserve currency of the world and being able to import things very inexpensively.  If the rest of the world (led by China) starts to reject the U.S. dollar, it would result in a massive tsunami of currency coming back to our shores and a very painful adjustment in our standard of living.  Today, most U.S. currency is actually used outside of the United States.  If someday that changes and we are no longer able to export our inflation that is going to mean big trouble for us. ​ see the video

World Press Freedom Day in The United States

4/22/2016

0 Comments

 

by E.L. Christianson Jr.

May 3rd marks the annual commemoration of World Press Freedom Day. The United States values freedom of the press as a key component of democratic governance. Democratic societies are not infallible, but they are accountable, and the exchange of ideas is the foundation for accountable governance. In the U.S. and in many places around the world, the press fosters active debate, provides investigative reporting, and serves as a forum to express different points of view, particularly on behalf of those who are marginalized in society. The U.S. commends journalists around the world for the important role they play, and for their commitment to the free exchange of ideas.

The U.S. in particular salutes those in the press who courageously do their work at great risk.The press is often a target of retaliation by those who feel threatened by freedom of expression and transparency in democratic processes. Journalists are often the first to uncover corruption, to report from the front lines of conflict zones, and to highlight missteps by governments. This work places many journalists in danger, and it is the duty of governments and citizens worldwide to speak out for their protection and for their vital role in open societies.the truth.

The above lofty sounding statements are on the website of the United States Department of State.  If only  those statements actually represented the attitude of the United States toward those journalists who are doing exactly what these statements seem to applaud.  Instead, under the Obama administration, we have prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined.  Whistleblowers are the eyes and ears of those journalists.  When the whistleblower on the inside, views wrong-doing and exposes it to the outside, it is largely through journalists the exposure is made public.

ACLU legislative counsel Gabe Rottman noted last October:  The Obama administration has secured 526 months of prison time for national security leakers, versus only 24 months total jail time for everyone else since the American Revolution.

Washington's Blog details point by point the belief that 'Obama Is More Hostile Towards The Press Than Any President In History'.

Top-secret documents from the National Security Agency and its British counterpart reveal for the first time how the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom targeted WikiLeaks and other activist groups with tactics ranging from covert surveillance to prosecution.

The efforts – detailed in documents provided previously by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden – included a broad campaign of international pressure aimed not only at WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but at what the U.S. government calls “the human network that supports WikiLeaks.” The documents also contain internal discussions about targeting the file-sharing site Pirate Bay and hacktivist collectives such as Anonymous.

We had the the arrest of journalists during #BlackLiveMatter protests in Baltimore and Minneapolis.  We have Wikileaks being declared a 'terrorist organization'.  We have the story of Edward Snowden and Barrett Brown and Jeffrey Sterling along with a host of others.  Read more here... and here and here.

US Ranks Only 41 in Press Freedoms Among 180 Nations.  That's pretty pathetic.  When reading the glorious words on the state department website, one wonders what were they thinking.  They said, "​The United States values freedom of the press as a key component of democratic governance... ​The U.S. in particular salutes those in the press who courageously do their work at great risk."  Was this simply 'tongue in cheek'?  Given the hostility of our government to 'real' reporting it is difficult to imagine it any other way... and that's the truth !!!

democracy, we've never measured up... 4/21/2016 0 Comments   by E.L. Christianson Jr. We like to think of ourselves as a democracy.  We believe in democracy so much that we are ready to go anywhere and everywhere in the world to enforce our idea that everybody should be able to vote and that the majority rules.   As we struggle toward our elections of 2016, the evidence against our own failures as a democracy become more evident.  Who can and cannot vote has become contentious as both parties vie for the white house. As a nation, we didn't start off very well and we still have a great distance to go. ​The original Constitution did determine who could vote.  It allowed each individual state to determine who could vote. Most states allowed only adult white male property owners to vote or approximately 6% of the total population. Today, the idea that we all go to the ballot box and vote for the people and policies of our choice to govern our society is very far from the truth.  In this country, those who get to rule and those policies we adopt are decided by the the 'majority' of those who our system will allow into the polling place.  To be given a ballot to cast only means that you haven't been declared ineligible to vote by the corruption of the system.   Being able to vote has three aspects, the right to vote and the opportunity to vote and the nature of the subject material being voted upon.   The right to vote is usually the focus of our concern in this country, who we allow to vote.  The opportunity to vote relates to whether or not the ruling government puts matters before the public to be voted upon, or not, and with what frequency.  The nature of subject material deals with the ability to vote for people to fill meaningful positions in government and/or voting for meaningful policy positions.  Democracy cannot function if the public is only able to vote for one who inspects cracks in the sidewalks and the election takes place every 50 years. Also, democracy cannot function if the few control the entire election process.  In contemporary 'America', the two parties attempt to control the election results through a variety of illegal and unethical methods.   In an article on 'Voter Purges' by Myrna Pérez we get to to see the corruption of the system from one particular angle. ​ Voter registration lists, also called voter rolls, are the gateway to voting. A citizen typically cannot cast a vote that will count unless her name appears on the voter registration rolls. Yet state and local officials regularly remove—or “purge”—citizens from voter rolls. In fact, thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia reported purging more than 13 million voters from registration rolls between 2004 and 2006. Purges, if done properly, are an important way to ensure that voter rolls are dependable, accurate, and up-to-date. Precise and carefully conducted purges can remove duplicate names, and people who have moved, died, or are otherwise ineligible. Far too frequently, however, eligible, registered citizens show up to vote and discover their names have been removed from the voter lists. States maintain voter rolls in an inconsistent and unaccountable manner. Officials strike voters from the rolls through a process that is shrouded in secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation. Gregg Palast gives more information on the purging of voters.   He says, "Buckle up, America. The voting demolition derby that was the New York primary on Tuesday was merely the crash test for the coming voting wreckage in November: a carefully planned pile up." In Brooklyn alone, over 125,000 names were quietly scrubbed from the voter rolls in the five months leading up to the primary. To put it in prospective, the number of voters purged equals about half of the number who got to vote. Scott Stringer, the New York City Comptroller will now audit the Elections Board--now that the election is over. Hey thanks, Scott. Am I saying the machine "fixed" the election for Hillary Clinton? Without further investigation, it would be irresponsible for me to pronounce judgment. Some of the purged may have moved, some may have died. But those who waited in line only to fill out affidavit ballots are unlikely to be deceased. But whether party hacks shoplifted New York or not, that's small potatoes. Scrubbing voter rolls is not a "New York value." It's a nationwide epidemic, a disease eating away at the heart of our democracy. Voting officials learned a lesson from Katherine Harris the Florida Secretary of State who purged Black voters in 2000. They learned how to repeat the purge, expand it and carefully hide it. Over time, we have passed amendments to the constitution in an effort to correct the lack of democracy in our society.  Simultaneously, we continue to pass laws that weaken the concept of democracy.  ​ As we approach the culmination of this election cycle in November of this year, it has become apparent to many of us that it will finally boil down to choosing the 'lesser of two evils' and that's not very good... and that's the truth !!!

in truth, in the United States, there is no justice 4/20/2016 0 Comments   March for justice after the Greensboro Massacre. Wikimedia Commons by E.L. Christianson Jr. We use the word all of the time.  We start teaching young children at the earliest possible moment in their new lives.  We have established systems in each and every culture at every period of recorded history.  The desire for justice seems to be part of being human. And yet, it appears impossible to achieve.  There is always some form of inequity within any system that relegates justice to a philosophical concept as opposed to a reality in society.  On the larger scale, war is injustice itself.  Society cannot wantonly kill off huge numbers of human beings and claim justice, no matter who wins and what excuses are used to 'justify' the slaughter.  For a country such as the United States whose foreign policy is focused on world domination, the word "justice" cannot have any meaning. But, that's on the larger scale.  On the local, domestic front, 'justice' does just as badly.  The laws are tilted toward the wealthy.  The system of law enforcement is focused entirely on the poor.  Those in prison are exclusively racial minorities and the poor (usually the same group because of systematic injustice). In every society throughout history, religion has played a significant role in the lives of the people.  Most people seem to believe in 'something'.  In the United States, we love to loudly identify ourselves as a 'Christian' nation.  It would be good if it were true.  We would achieve that elusive 'justice'.  But, unfortunately, there are virtually no 'Christians' in this country.  The teachings of Jesus were simple and straight forward... "Love God & Love Your Neighbor".  If there was one word to use in describing his teachings, that word would be "Compassion". But then, here we are not even pretending to be Christians... only mouthing a few hollow words and totally devoid of any action.  How can one pretend compassion while operating a 'criminal justice system' that is itself 'Criminal'?  How can one 'justify' forcing innocent people to plead guilty?  How can one 'justify incarcerating people because they are poor? Forcing the Innocent to Plead Guilty, an American Disgrace By John Kiriakou, opednews A record 149 people had their criminal convictions overturned in 2015 after courts found they had been wrongly charged, according to a recent study. Nearly four in 10 of those exonerated had been convicted of murder, and the average newly-released prisoner had served more than 14 years in prison. Most of the exonerations came in only two states, Texas and New York. The National Registry of Exonerations, a project of the University of Michigan Law School, found that there have been 1,733 exonerations since 1989, with the total doubling since 2011. More than two-thirds of last year's exonerees were minorities. Five had been sentenced to death. There is a reason why most of the exonerations have come from two locales. District attorneys in Brooklyn, New York, and Harris County, Texas, have begun long-term reviews of questionable convictions, actions that are being watched by prosecutors and defense attorneys across the country. With 156 death row exonerations since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, this is a problem that must be addressed. The National Registry of Exonerations report stated further that 42 of those exonerated in 2015 had pleaded guilty, a glaring indication that the current system of seeking plea bargains simply isn't just. Indeed, Propublica found that 98.2 percent of all federal cases end in conviction, with nearly all of those a result of plea deals. Why would an innocent person take a plea? Really, there is no alternative. First, the government uses a technique called "charge stacking." Have you committed an actual crime? Be prepared for multiple charges, including a lot of "throw-away charges," like obstruction of justice or making a false statement. In addition, the government will likely levy multiple charges against you for the same crime. The point is not necessarily to convict you on everything, although prosecutors are perfectly happy to do that. The point is that prosecutors will eventually offer you a deal. Take a plea to one count and the others will be dismissed. It's a negotiating ploy. But for the accused, the question is this: Even if you are innocent, should you take a plea and do a couple of years in prison or should you try your luck at trial, knowing that almost no defendant wins in court? Almost everybody takes the deal. After I blew the whistle on the CIA's torture program, the Justice Department charged me with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I had confirmed the name of a former CIA colleague to a reporter who wanted to interview him for a book. The name was never made public, but I shouldn't have done it. Still, I had no criminal intent and there was no harm to the national security. But that didn't matter. The government added three espionage charges, as well as a charge of making a false statement. They threatened additional charges of making a false statement and obstruction of justice. Of course, I hadn't committed espionage. Nor had I made any false statements. But that didn't matter. Why risk a trial when you can just force a defendant to take a plea? In the end, I took a plea to the initial charge. Everything else was dismissed. I was sentenced to 30 months in a federal prison. If I had gone to trial and had been found guilty, I was looking at 45 years. Realistically, I would have been sentenced to 18-24 years. Either way, I would have likely died in prison. ​ That happens every day in America. So it should be no surprise that innocent people are in prison as a result of pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit. The work of the Brooklyn and Harris County district attorneys should be lauded. But innocent men and women shouldn't have to rely on the isolated prosecutor with a conscience for justice. Justice should mean justice. Stop Punishing People for Poverty: Abolish Bail By Maya Schenwar, The New York Times Chicago - How can we reduce the enormous populations of our country's local jails? Last month, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York unveiled a plan to decrease the population of the Rikers Island jail complex by reducing the backlog of cases in state courts. About 85 percent of those at Rikers haven't been convicted of any offense; they're just awaiting trial, sometimes for as long as hundreds of days. Mayor de Blasio's plan is a positive step. Yet it ignores a deeper question: Why are so many people - particularly poor people of color - in jail awaiting trial in the first place? Usually, it is because they cannot afford bail. According to a 2011 report by the city's Independent Budget Office, 79 percent of pretrial detainees were sent to Rikers because they couldn't post bail right away. This is a national problem. Across the United States, most of the people incarcerated in local jails have not been convicted of a crime but are awaiting trial. And most of those are waiting in jail not because of any specific risk they have been deemed to pose, but because they can't pay their bail. In other words, we are locking people up for being poor. This is unjust. We should abolish monetary bail outright. Some will argue that bail is necessary to prevent flight before trial, but there is no good basis for that assumption. For one thing, people considered to pose an unacceptable risk of flight (or violence) are not granted bail in the first place. (Though the procedures for determining who poses a risk themselves ought to be viewed with skepticism, especially since conceptions of risk are often shaped, tacitly or otherwise, by racist assumptions.) There is also evidence that bail is not necessary to ensure that people show up for trial. In Washington, DC, a city that makes virtually no use of monetary bail, the vast majority of arrestees who are released pretrial do return to court, and rates of additional crime before trial are low. In addition to being unjust and unnecessary, pretrial incarceration can have harmful consequences. Not only do those who are in jail before trial suffer the trauma of confinement, but in comparison with their bailed-out counterparts, they are also more likely to be convicted at trial. As documented in a 2010 Human Rights Watch report, the legal system is substantially tougher to navigate from behind bars. People in jail face more pressure to accept plea bargains - often, ones that aren't to their advantage - than do those confronting their charges from home. Those who spend even a few days in jail can lose their jobs or housing during that time. Single parents can lose custody of their children. By exacerbating the effects of poverty, and by placing people in often traumatizing circumstances, pretrial incarceration may actually lead to more crime. Bail also raises issues of racial injustice. A number of studies have shown that black defendants are assigned higher bail amounts than their white counterparts. This discrepancy is compounded by the fact that black people disproportionately live in poverty and thus unduly face challenges in paying bail. Other burdens of bail also fall harder on people of color. For instance, black mothers face a particularly serious risk of losing custody of their children while incarcerated, because they are excessively targeted by child protective services. Jails disproportionately confine mentally ill people, too - rates of mental illness are four to six times higher in jail than outside - and people with mental health problems often live in economic circumstances that make it difficult to afford bail. A study released in February by the Vera Institute of Justice found that one-third of jailed people with mental illness were unemployed before being arrested. Finally, monetary bail is at odds with the legal ideal of the presumption of innocence. If we want to grant people this presumption, we must not punish them before their trials. There is no getting around it: We are incarcerating people for being poor, at great cost to actual human lives. We have to stop. The Pledge of Allegiance concludes with a description of the flag and the nation to which one pledges allegiance..."with liberty and justice for all"... clearly that does not describe the United States today or at any point in our history, and that's the truth !!! also read 'There is no Justice in America' by Paul Craig Roberts wherein he endorses an article by Chris Hedges, 'The Mirage of Justice'. also read,  'Justice for All'  An Impossible Goal? by Bradford G. Schleifer

we've got them but you can't have any...

4/19/2016

0 Comments

 

We have nuclear weapons.  We are working constantly to 'improve' our nuclear weapons.  But, if you're not us, then we don't allow you to have nuclear weapons.   At least in part, this is because we are sane, intelligent, compassionate, god-fearing, (along with a long list of other important qualifications) which allows us to declare ourselves trustworthy with a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons.  Meanwhile, 'you' are insecure, insane, stupid, (along with a long list of other important dis-qualifications) and therefore our judgement is that you can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.  Our judgement is all that matters.

So, if you're not us, as in you are Iran or North Korea, no nuclear weapons for you.

The United States, Japan and South Korea held senior level diplomatic talks Tuesday to discuss joint measures that could be taken if North Korea continues to defy the United Nations Security Council resolution banning its nuclear and ballistic missile development.

“We have to at all costs put a stop to this. We are at a very important phase in this regard,” said the Japanese vice foreign minister.

North Korea has been under U.N. sanctions since 2006 for its multiple nuclear tests and rocket launches.

Tougher new international sanctions were adopted in March in response to North Korea’s fourth nuclear test, conducted in January, and a satellite launch in February that utilized banned ballistic missile technology.

The government of Kim Jong Un has so far responded defiantly by firing a number of short- and mid-range missiles and accelerating its nuclear development timeline.

The North Korean state news agency blasted the sanctions as "unprecedented and gangster-like."    The "political and economic pressure and military aggression on the DPRK have gone to a grave phase that can no longer be overlooked," KCNA said.

North Korea warned it would make a "preemptive and offensive nuclear strike" in response to joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises that began Monday.

(About 17,000 U.S. forces will participate in the joint military exercises with South Korea, according to United States Forces Korea.​)

"As the joint military exercises to be staged by the enemies are regarded as the most undisguised nuclear war drills aimed to infringe upon the sovereignty of the DPRK, its military counteraction will be more preemptive and offensive nuclear strike to cope with them," the statement read.

​North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the country's "nuclear warheads need to be ready for use at any time," the North Korean state news agency KCNA reported Friday.

"Under the extreme situation that the U.S. Imperialist is misusing its military influence and is pressuring other countries and people to start war and catastrophe, the only way for our people to protect sovereignty and rights to live is to strengthen the quality and quantity of nuclear power and realize the balance of power," Kim said, according to KCNA.

​The "political and economic pressure and military aggression on the DPRK have gone to a grave phase that can no longer be overlooked," KCNA said.

So, we are conducting 'joint military exercises' along with our puppet regime, 'allies', in South Korea and we didn't expect the North Koreans to do anything other than sit and watch and wait to be removed from the scene whether overtly or covertly.  That doesn't seem very realistic.  As dumb as we may want to think that they are, they are very likely aware of history and know something of our purpose in conducting 'joint military exercises' on their border.

The U.N. resolution that brought about the sanctions aims to cripple the economic factors that fuel North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs --- graphic from CNN

When one examines the sanctions in the above graphic, one wonders.  How effective can these items be? Would diplomats not be expelled for illicit activities under normal circumstances?  Do we not generally inspect planes and ships?  Are North Koreans reliant upon training from the west for their programs?  Do we supply their small arms and aviation fuel?  Are these sanctions designed to be effective or to give ourselves some sense of power?

We, they, and the whole world would almost certainly be better off if we approached this situation with friendship rather than sanctions.  If only we could all drop the militaristic stance we would all benefit, and that's the truth !!!

the world needs better nuclear weapons... 4/18/2016 0 Comments   from NYTimes by E.L. Christianson Jr. The major world powers are determined to deliver better nuclear weapons to the world.  Better, in this case, needs lots of definition and understanding.  For example, we don't want to destroy lots of buildings which represent capital wealth, we just want to kill off the people who inhabit those buildings.  The solution for the future is a bomb that will "loft a cloud of radioactive contamination from an underwater explosion that would make target cities uninhabitable." As the world moves forward with the 'arms race', as each participant attempts to gain the lead, everyone involved wants to blame everyone else for everything. American officials largely blame the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, saying his intransigence has stymied efforts to build on a 2010 arms control treaty and further shrink the arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers. Some blame the Chinese, who are looking for a technological edge to keep the United States at bay. And some blame the United States itself for speeding ahead with a nuclear “modernization” that, in the name of improving safety and reliability, risks throwing fuel on the fire. In this country, of course, our motivation is always humanitarian.  We aren't trying to get ahead, we are just trying to modernize our weapons "in the name of improving safety and reliability".  One supposes that 'safety' in this instance must mean that the people who deliver the weapons of death and destruction to the other side will, themselves, remain safe from the effects of the weapons that they are delivering to the other side. Safety also means that if we can eliminate the other side quickly enough, then there will be no retaliation from the other side and we will remain safe... victorious and safe.  This is the 'modernization' of the old theory of MAD - 'mutual assured destruction'.  Now, one imagines only the assured destruction of the other side while we remain 'safe'. And, of course, we must remember that the destruction of the other side means destruction of the people and not the actual cities and capital wealth. As would be expected, American officials largely blame the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, saying his intransigence has stymied efforts to build on a 2010 arms control treaty.   Two Russian jets flew within metres of the ship on Monday, US officials said. Russia's defence ministry said the Su-24 fighter jets "turned away in observance of all safety measures" after observing the USS Donald Cook. Mr Kerry criticised the gesture and said contact had been made with Moscow. "We condemn this kind of behaviour," he told the Miami Herald and CNN Espanol in a joint interview. "It is reckless. It is provocative. It is dangerous. And under the rules of engagement, that could have been a shoot-down." ​ He added that the US "is not going to be intimidated on the high seas" and that a message had been conveyed to Russia over the danger of such a gesture. Kerry did not offer explanations as to why our ship was sailing close to a Russian navy base and he didn't comment on what we might have done had a Russian ship been sailing close to a United States navy base. ​He didn't declare our sailing close to a Russian navy base to be reckless, provocative or dangerous. A Russian intercontinental ballistic missile that can carry four miniaturized nuclear warheads was paraded through Red Square in Moscow last May. Credit Kirill Kudryavsev/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images  On the other side of the planet, Kerry hasn't declared our sailing close to China to be reckless, provocative or dangerous, either.  But we are there.   A United States Carrier Strike Group Arrives in the South China Sea to Deter China.  The head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), Admiral Harry Harris, said in a senate testimony in late February that “China is clearly militarizing the South China Sea and you’d have to believe in the flat Earth to think otherwise.” “The accusation [that China is militarizing the region] can lead to a miscalculation of the situation,” said Fu Ying, a spokeswoman for China’s National People’s Congress, in response to the admiral’s remarks, according to The Navy Times. “If you take a look at the matter closely, it’s the U.S. sending the most advanced aircraft and military vessels to the South China Sea.” The United States is simply continuing to do what we have been doing, patrolling the earth in our quest for world dominance.  And we are creating circumstances wherein, eventually, we will be 'compelled' to use those better nuclear weapons that we are developing.   You’d have to believe in the flat Earth to think otherwise... and that's the truth !!!