Wednesday, October 18, 2017

[Horrific] Somalia Bombing an Outgrowth of Foreign Meddling

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Seattle Has New Low Power Progressive Radio Station -- KODX-LP 96.9 FM Seattle Launch Event - October 5, 2017

MST3K - The Gumby Show: Robot Rumpus

Friday, October 13, 2017

United for Single Payer (Seattle) Asking Senators Cantwell and Murray to Co-Sponsor S.1804 (Medicare for All)


SENATOR CANTWELL  1 (202) 224-3441

SENATOR MURRAY  1 (202) 224-2621

For talking points and to help organize for Medicare for All, go to: or if you are in Seattle, United for Single Payer.

Monday, October 09, 2017

Lakota in America

Thursday, October 05, 2017

Big Capital May Punish the UK For Corbynomics [BUT Corbyn and Labour Have Massive Public Support!]

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Max Kellerman is an EDUCATED MAN (On Kaepenick's protest)

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

"Empire Files: Israelis Speak Candidly to Abby Martin About Palestinians"

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Omali Yeshitela calls out white media...

US Ambassador to Israel Doesn’t Recognize Palestine - @MaxBlumenthal

Friday, September 29, 2017

Obama Actually Admits He's A Moderate Republican!

First Somali Jet Pilot in 1976 via Angry Arab News Service

From Angry Arab News Service

Monday, September 25, 2017

Ian Angus: Why We Need An EcoSocialist Revolution - Socialism 2013

Saluting the delegates of the inaugural People's Congress of Resistance

Friday, September 22, 2017

Netanyahu Targets Iran to Deflect From Occupation--@therealnews

Neocons and Hollywood Liberals Go to 'War' on Russia -- @aaronjmate and @maxblumenthal on @therealnews

Thursday, September 21, 2017

White Police, Black Unarmed Suspects -- Glen Ford @blkagendareport

The Ken Burns Vietnam "Documentary." Or Should I Just Watch Game of Thrones Again?-- Bruce Dixon @blkagendareport

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Webinar: Incrementalism is an Obstacle to Improved Medicare for All -- Dr. Margaret Flowers

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Canada’s Danielle Martin Explains in a Few Words the Rationale of Single Payer [DR. MARTIN's STARTS AT MIN. 21]

Sunday, September 10, 2017

"Empire Files: From 1776 to Trump - White Mobs, Racist Heroes & Hidden History" -- @AbbyMartin intervews Prof Gerald Horne -- MUST WATCH

Saturday, September 09, 2017

"Israel's Jewish-Only Right of Return Displaces Palestinians for 2nd Time" -- @therealnews


Friday, September 08, 2017

"Who is Begging for War? We Have Such a Poor Understanding of the Conflict with North Korea" -- @VijayPrashad

Original Post:

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the Security Council that North Korea was ‘begging for war.’ She said this in reference to the test of a thermonuclear – hydrogen – bomb by the North Korean military. ‘Enough is enough,’ said Ambassador Haley. ‘We have taken an incremental approach, and despite the best of intentions, it has not worked.’
Ambassador Haley made these comments at the UN Security Council, where there are five permanent members and ten rotating members. These five permanents members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) are all nuclear weapon powers. They are not on the Council permanently (with veto power) because they have nuclear weapons. There are declared nuclear weapon states (India, Israel and Pakistan) that do not have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It is an accident of history that gives these five countries the right to be the judges of the planet.
Each of these five permanent members of the UN Security Council is already in possession of a thermonuclear bomb. The United States tested its hydrogen bomb in 1952; the Soviets followed the next year. The British tested their bomb in 1958, with the Chinese following in 1967 and the French in 1968. That means that almost fifty years ago, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council already had a thermonuclear – namely hydrogen – bomb.
The US bomb tested in the Bikini Atoll in 1954 was a thousand times more powerful than the atomic bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima. The North Korean bomb is similar to the hydrogen bombs that are held by the permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is a bomb that could destroy New York City, Seoul or even Pyongyang.
There is something unseemly about the fact that we – humans – have accepted the presence of thermonuclear bombs in the arsenals of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The hyperventilation of these five hydrogen bomb powers to the North Korean test would bewilder a normal person, a person who sees world affairs with an element of rationality. What makes it morally impossible for North Korea to have a dangerous weapon of this magnitude, while it is seen as perfectly acceptable for the quivering finger of Donald Trump to rest on the button of a US inter-continental ballistic missile that carries a hydrogen bomb?
The View from Pyongyang.
Why is North Korea, this country with great economic uncertainty, making such a great effort to build a nuclear arsenal? Why not use its scarce resources to tend to its own people?
There are at least four important points to consider when studying why the North Koreans continue to build a nuclear arsenal. If these four points are seriously understood, then their actions appear less irrational than otherwise assumed.
  1. The War Has Not Ended: US Ambassador Nikki Haley says that the North Koreans are ‘begging for war.’ But North Korea has been in a permanent state of war against South Korea and its allies since June 1950. When the guns stopped firing in July 1953, the war did not end. There has been an armistice since 1953, but no peace treaty. The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is not a border between North and South Korea, but a tense border for hostilities that remain vital.’’
  1. The US Conduct in the War Is a Sign of Its Belligerence: Most US high school students study the history of World War II and the US war in Vietnam, but do not get taught the Korean war. They learn little of the great barbarity of the US bombing of that country, not only of the bridges on the Yalu River but of dams and schools, hospitals and factories, government offices and residential homes. During the active phase of the war, the United States dropped 635,000 tons of bombs (including 32,557 tons of napalm – a chemical weapon) on Korea – more than the US tonnage dropped in the entire Pacific theatre of World War II. On November 5, 1950, Far East Air Forces General George E. Stratemeyer wrote that the instructions he got from General Douglas MacArthur was that ‘every installation, every facility, and village in North Korea now becomes a military and tactical target.’ Three days later, the US bombers dropped 500 tons of incendiary bombs on Sinuiju, destroying 60% of the city. Almost all of the cities of Chosan, Hoeryong, Huichon, Koindong, Manpojin, Namsi, and Sakchu were destroyed. On December 30, Stratemeyer told his officers that they would now destroy North Korea’s four largest cities – Pyongyang, Hamhung, Hungnam and Wonsan. At the close of the bombing, eighteen of twenty-two major North Korean cities were levelled. This is data from the United States Air Force, not from North Korean textbooks. Every American should digest this history.
  1. George W. Bush Raises the Belligerence: In 1994, North Korea and the United States signed the ‘Agreed Framework’ for negotiations. This was a real breakthrough. In exchange for material demonstration that it would not increase its weapons programs, the North Koreans would be able to replace their aging Yongbyon nuclear reactor by two light water reactors. North Korea had – in 1985 – joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This was a major confidence builder for any negotiations. What the North Koreans wanted more than anything was for the US to draw down its troop levels in South Korea and to cease its provocative war games near the North Korean frontier. There are about 30,000 US troops in South Korea and 50,000 US troops in Japan – two detachments that threaten North Korea. The Clinton administration agreed to postpone the Team Spirit war games with South Korea. This was seen by the North as a major concession. Construction on the light water reactors began in August 2002. But this was already too late. In January of 2002, US President George W. Bush added North Korea into his ‘axis of evil.’ The three countries in that axis were Iraq, Iran and North Korea. In 2003, the US conducted a ‘regime change’ war against Iraq. The following year – in 2004 – the US pushed an isolation policy against Iran through the ‘nuclear threat’ agenda. The Europeans, driven to the wall by the war on terror, backed the US even though many European diplomats knew that there was no fire behind the smoke that the Americans claimed to see. North Korea, watching Baghdad being destroyed and Iran being threatened, walked away from the talks. Construction on the light-water reactor ended in 2006 and in 2009 the Six Party talks over peace with the North collapsed. George W. Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech pushed the North towards a reopened nuclear weapons agenda.
  1. Libya Gives Up Its Nukes and Finds Regime Change is the Answer: In 2003, Libya’s government led by Colonel Muammar Qaddafi decided to end its clandestine nuclear weapons program. At that time, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency – Mohamed ElBaradei said that he had a ‘gut feeling’ that Libya was about three to seven years away from building a nuclear weapon. But Libya decided to end that program, and the following year to end its chemical weapons program. By the end of 2004, then, Libya was largely without weapons of mass destruction – all removed voluntarily. The US promised the Libyans security guarantees for their removal of these weapons. But then, in 2011, the United States and NATO – under a UN mandate – conducted a ‘regime change’ operation against Libya. The country is now in great pain, destroyed by this regime change operation of 2011. The message to North Korea is clear – if you give up your nuclear weapons, you will be a victim of regime change.
You don’t need to understand Korean culture to see why the North Korean regime is obstinate to build up its nuclear shield. Unless the United States and its allies downgrade their threats against North Korea, there will be no possibility of peace in northwest Asia. Indeed, this no longer a regional struggle. The hydrogen bomb changes everything. This is a global catastrophe. It is necessary to demand the creation of a real process for peace, not belligerent talk from the UN chamber.
On these days, with nuclear war at the edge of our consciousness, it is worthwhile to read the diary of a Japanese doctor – Michihiko Hachiya – kept during and after the bombing of Hiroshima and published in 1955. Here, as war sits near us, is Dr. Hachiya on what he saw in the dim light after the bomb fell on his city,
‘There were the shadowy forms of people, some of whom looked like walking ghosts. Others moved as though in pain, like scarecrows, their arms held out from their bodies with forearms and hands dangling. These people puzzled me until I realized that they had been burned and were holding their arms out to prevent the painful friction of raw surfaces rubbing together. A naked woman carrying a naked baby came into view. I averted my gaze. Then I saw a naked man, and it occurred to me that, like myself, some strange thing had deprived them of their clothes. An old woman lay near me with an expression of suffering on her face; but she made no sound. Indeed, one thing was common to everyone I saw – complete silence.’
Vijay Prashad is professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). His columns appear at AlterNet every Wednesday.

Monday, September 04, 2017

Hands Off Syria Coalition Presentation — Stephen Gowans (NYC)


"African Americans Fighting Fascism and Racism" -- Matthew Delmont

from the article linked above, a portion of a Langston Hughes poem (

“Looky here, America / What you done done / Let things drift / Until the riots come […] You tell me that hitler / Is a mighty bad man / I guess he took lessons from the ku klux klan […] I ask you this question / Cause I want to know / How long I got to fight / BOTH HITLER — AND JIM CROW.”

Sunday, September 03, 2017

Mainstream Media Misrepresents Hurricane Harvey's Climate Change Connection--WATCH THIS EXPLANATION. @therealnews

Saturday, September 02, 2017

Oldie But A Goody: "Clare Daly, Irish Parliament: Obama War Criminal & Hypocrite of the Century"

Free Palestine Vigil in Downtown Seattle -- Sept 2, 2017 --

For the most part, we handed out Disappearing Palestine postcards from If Americans Knew.

"The Murder of Seven White Helmets in Syria?"--Very Revealing Report by Max Blumenthal

Near the end of the video. Max reports pre-publishing threats to him regarding his Syrian work and on the FBI's surveillance of Americans' Facebooks for "fake news" of Russian origin.

Friday, September 01, 2017

Survey: Most Americans Accept Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iranian Civilians

A new survey published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) suggests Americans are willing to make a first nuclear strike against Iran and kill millions of civilians in the process.
According to the report, entitled “Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran,” although the majority of Americans initially approved of President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop the nuclear bomb in 1945 on two civilian populations in Japan, a poll conducted in 1998 showed the number of Americans who approved of the decision had dropped since the 1970s and 1980s. This trend carried on even until the early 2000s and arguably to the present day.
However, the new survey shows that many Americans continue to support nuclear warfare when posed with a hypothetical (albeit currently nonexistent) threat. As the survey notes, a clear majority of Americans “would approve of using nuclear weapons first against the civilian population of a nonnuclear-armed adversary, killing 2 million Iranian civilians, if they believed that such use would save the lives of 20,000 U.S. soldiers.”

Disasters Bring Out the Un-Capitalist in Us--@LeeCamp

Friday, August 25, 2017

New US Sanctions Against Venezuela to Cause Greater Economic Instability

#USA baldly trying to get rid of Maduro government.

CIA Retiree to John Pilger: "We'll Intervene ... When It's In Our Interest, and If You Don't Like It, Lump It! Get Used to it World!"

Rachel Maddow Promotes Stealing Afghan Minerals & Endless War--@jimmy_dore

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Historian Gerald Horne: Trump Defends White Supremacy to Maintain Elite Power Structure

African-Americans need to realize they are seen as a social problem [the enemy] – Ajamu Baraka

Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News Tonight on HBO -- MUST WATCH

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

How the World May End - John Pilger on Venezuela, Trump & Russia -- @afshinrattansi

Monday, August 14, 2017

Deandre Harris on Attack by White Supremacists in Charlottesville -- @therealnews

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Defense Department Brags About Killing 1 Million Koreans -- @jimmydore

Friday, August 11, 2017

EXCLUSIVE: 'We're living in 1984' - Roger Waters [great interview]

Pueblo Resurgence, White Revisionism: The Bloody Truth about the Santa Fe Entrada -- from The Red Nation Blog

Last year, dozens of Indigenous peoples, Pueblos, and their allies protested the annual racist celebration of the Santa Fe Entrada.
by Elena Ortiz and Jennifer Marley
Every fall the city of Santa Fe celebrates a revisionist historical account of the so-called “bloodless reconquest” of Santa Fe. Most New Mexicans have no idea of the origins of this celebration or its evolution. There are claims that the Entrada is the oldest community celebration in this country, but even that is historically inaccurate.
The first documented celebration of the reconquest of Santa Fe was in 1712. This celebration was primarily religious in nature with the main focus being  processions featuring the Corpus Christi and La Conquistadora. This version continued through the mid-1700’s. Then, in 1883, after a lapse of more than 100 years, the Fiestas was revived. As a way of promoting Santa Fe business and tourism, the focus shifted to a more civic celebration. Ironically, it was moved to the Fourth of July to coincide with US independence.
In 1919, Fiestas was reorganized and revitalized by mostly Eastern-educated, non-Native board members of the Museum of New Mexico and School of American Research. These outsiders, led by the much-heralded grave-robber Edgar Lee Hewitt, added elements to the celebration to make it more appealing to white tourists and visitors to Santa Fe. Hewitt, a well known anthropologist was known for unlawfully excavating remains and artifacts from holy Pueblo sites, and even trespassing into Pueblo residential homes without consent. Hewitt and his ilk also romanticized the Spanish colonial era through the creation of the contemporary Entrada with images of Catholic and military glory and a bygone era.
Soon this romantic enactment of Spanish conquest made it’s way into public schools with visits by a costumed Don Diego de Vargas and his murderous merry men. Such Disneyland historical celebrations glorify the Eurocentric Spanish heritage as the dominant narrative among a population of schoolchildren more likely to have indigenous, Latinx/Chicanx heritage than Spanish, thus marginalizing the very people they seek to convert.
In 1977 The All Indian Pueblo Council and the Eight Northern Pueblos expressed their condemnation of the Entrada. Because of this the Fiesta Council sent a letter to Eight Northern asking Pueblo vendors vacate their space underneath the portal at the Palace of the Governors during Fiesta. The Fiesta Council, it seems, only wanted Pueblo people to participate in Fiestas if they were willing to play the roles prescribed by the script celebrating their subjugation and humiliation at the hands of the conquistadors.
This marginalization of Native people should be anathema for a city whose main source of revenue is tourism and when one of the main draws for primarily white tourists are the vibrant Native communities and their artistic traditions. But it is evident in the amount of money doled out by the city to promote Fiestas which, in 2015 was $50,000 compared to $31,000 for Indian Market. Both of these monies come from lodgers’ tax whose sole purpose is to promote tourism to the city. Neither total includes the additional costs, such as an increased police presence. Interestingly enough, there were no SWAT team snipers on the rooftops around the Plaza during Indian Market like there were during Fiestas. Indian Market is the largest event of its kind in the world and brings in millions of dollars to Santa Fe every year, more so than any other single event — and certainly more than Fiestas.
Much like the original Entrada, last year the city of Santa Fe deployed armed men to defend its racist celebration against protesting Pueblo and Indigenous peoples. Pictured here, Santa Fe SWAT snipers survey peaceful Pueblo-led protests at the Plaza, the same place Spanish colonizers and missionaries hanged 70 Pueblo patriots.
How does this uneven allocation continue year after year? You only have to look at the demographics on the City Council to understand why. Mayor Javier Gonzales and Councilors Carmichael Dominguez and Ron Trujillo have all played De Vargas in the Entrada.
The Entrada itself is produced by Los Caballeros de Vargas, a non-profit Catholic ministry. The President of Los Caballeros, Joe Mier, describes the Entrada as “a celebration, not that we conquered anyone. It’s a religious celebration. That should be the main focus.”
If it is a religious celebration, then the use of public funds to promote it is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which prohibits the use of religious symbols in public displays or celebrations, i.e. the “Separation of Church and State.” And it is a violation of our children’s civil rights to allow these murderous “religious figures” – Don Diego and his party — into the public schools.
The Entrada is a public commemoration of the Spanish conquest of the Southwest, supported by the Catholic Church through the Doctrine of Discovery. This legacy of settler colonialism serves only to perpetuate the myth of Euro-Spanish superiority and Indigenous, Mestizo, and Chicanx inferiority.
Santa Fe Fiesta Council president, Dean Milligan, was quoted in a recent article describing Native people on Native land as “outside agitators.” This narrative that frames Indigenous people as foreign and burdensome on their own land is not new. This is the same accusation that has been used for centuries to naturalize settlements occupying Native land. By making Native people “outsiders” or “foreigners” the settler seeks to replace the Native, naturalizing himself as the “new Native.” What this ideology allows is unrestricted access to Native land, resources, wealth, livelihood, and culture by occupying powers. We see that there is a very clear correlation to the normalization of reenactments of conquest and the normalization of resource extraction. It is with this in mind that we link our struggle to abolish revisionist history to the struggle to protect sacred sites. The growing struggle to protect Chaco Canyon a holy site Sacred to Pueblo people and Diné people concerns alike must be centered as one of the many resistance efforts that the imagery and rhetoric of the Entrada and the fabricated history perpetuates actively erases.
The challenge to Abolish the Entrada does not stand apart from the centuries old history of resistance that Pueblo people continue to uphold.
As Native people we need to remember that before Don Diego De Vargas, the Fiesta Queen and La Conquistadora became conquest theater; before the Great Lie was constructed that has perpetuated the Santa Fe Fiestas celebration of Native cultural genocide; before Anglo Euro-centric marginalization of Native heritage in Northern New Mexico — there was the Pueblo Revolt.
“The Pueblo Indian Revolution of 1680,” writes Alfonso Ortiz, a Pueblo scholar from Ohkay Owingeh, “is to be understood most profoundly as an act of restoration by the ancestors. What was restored was life, peace and the freedom of the Pueblo people whose human, political and economic rights were routinely violated by the Spaniards of the 17th century. The ancestors knew that they must fully restore the ancient teachings ‘as it has been left among us from the time of the Earth’s dawn, when all was young and green’. Thus the vision of the beginning, a fresh ever-renewable and vigorous beginning had to be fully restored and reaffirmed or the Earth would die.”
Let us remember that when DeVargas returned Pueblo People did not submit to conquest. Let us remember the continued rebellion that took place in late December of 1692, after which DeVargas proceeded to hang 70 Pueblo warriors at a gallows that stood where the Entrada takes place to this very day.
Pueblo scholars like Herman Agoyo, Joe Sando, and Alfonso Ortiz remind us that without our spirit of resistance against colonialism we would not have held onto the depth of Traditions and ceremonial life that we have today. And in order for our traditions to flourish we must make it known that celebrations that erase our history and celebrate our conquest must come to an end.
It is our mandate, drawn from the legacy of our ancestors, to enact change where change is necessary, to show courage in the face of overwhelming odds and to work to restore, respect, and preserve that which we hold sacred.
Join the Pueblo People and The Red Nation on September 8 to protest the racist Santa Fe Entrada.
In the Spirit of Po Pay!

Sunday, August 06, 2017

Bannon and Blackwater Want to Outsource Afghan War -- STOP THE WAR ON THESE PEOPLE!

#FreePalestine Vigil Continues in Seattle, August 4, 2017 @Voices4Pals


Saturday, August 05, 2017

"War Is What the U.S. Does to Others" -- John Pilger

The title quote here come from this John Pilger article:

The genius Randy Newman wrote about this U.S. mania for violent world domination also:

Randy Newman - A Few Words in Defense of Our Country


Friday, August 04, 2017

Moral Principles and Flexible Sanctions -- Brian Cloughley [Some Bold Snarks Amidst These Sad Truths]


There is generally a degree of hypocrisy about the imposition of sanctions on a country by another country or group of countries. Those who inflict sanctions assert that their target has done something terribly wrong which will be corrected following its recognition that superior beings are setting an international example of flawless moral rectitude, but it is doubtful that such perfection exists.
If the sanctioning countries were in reality superior in moral behaviour to everyone else on the planet, this might possibly excuse sanctioning in some cases; but at times the unwelcome fact emerges that imposing sanctions is usually an act of sanctimonious humbug.
Take India and Pakistan, for example. India conducted nuclear tests in May 1998 and Pakistan followed suit «to even the score» in an ill-advised counterstroke. There was outrage in Washington. President Clinton, notable for his high moral standards, declared that India’s tests «clearly create a dangerous new instability in their region and... I have decided to impose sanctions against India». Then he took the same action against Pakistan.
Both countries were subjected to severe economic penalties at the instigation of Washington. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were forbidden to help them, and there were all sorts of other punishments. The western world, and especially Israel, which had been quietly producing nuclear weapons for years, expected sanctions to have the effect of halting the nuclear weapons programmes of both countries.
The US Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs quoted the President’s righteous indignation to the Senate by repeating that «this action by India not only threatens the stability of the region, it directly challenges the firm international consensus to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction».
But today India and Pakistan each have about 130 nuclear warheads in bombs and ballistic missiles and their nuclear weapons programmes are at full throttle. There has been massive nuclear proliferation. So what could have happened? Why didn’t sanctions work?
What happened was that another paragon of moral rectitude, George W Bush (he of «we found the Weapons of Mass Destruction» after his catastrophic invasion of Iraq) decided to remove sanctions on India and Pakistan because, as his spokesman explained, «We intend to support those who support us. We intend to work with those governments that work with us in this fight [against terrorism]».
As the great Groucho Marx once said, with a cynical eye on the world around him,
The latest sanctions on Russia are a prime example of malevolent spite, and are intended to make life as difficult as possible for its citizens in the hope that they will revolt and overthrow President Putin, just as sanctions on Cuba were intended to have Cubans topple President Castro, if the CIA couldn’t murder him first. (They tried many times.) The US has sanctioned Cuba for almost sixty years, but, as observed by the Cato Institute, «The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen...»
Obama tried to end the mindless, petty, spiteful anti-Cuba campaign, but the psychotic Trump got things back to normal by announcing introduction of even harsher sanctions, including a ban on tourism. That will teach these evil people to support their government. The workers in ports and airfields and hotels and night clubs and restaurants will condemn Washington, and not their government, for destroying their jobs.
Then there were the years of sanctions against Iraq which penalised its citizens to a criminal degree. The US attitude was summed up by Ambassador Madeleine Albright, who was asked on television if she considered the deaths of half a million Iraqi children a reasonable result of US sanctions. She replied «This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it». This callous, pitiless, utterly heartless statement was indicative of US official policy — which continues, world-wide.
But that’s what sanctions are all about. And the latest bout of gutter vindictiveness centres on Russia. To the joy of the sabre-rattlers, and especially of NATO, so desperately seeking a reason for its continued existence, the Cold War has begun again.
But there’s a little problem for the warmongers...
Unfortunately for US national pride, there are some things for which it has to rely on Russia, and a difficulty for Washington is that US astronauts are ferried to and from the International Space Station in Russian rockets, and that some American rockets rely on Russian engines.
So among its vicious measures to try to punish Russia the US Congress didn’t include sanctions that might be awkward for their space programmes. There were no mainstream media reports about this embarrassing tap-dancing, but one observation was that «Officials at Orbital ATK [an American aerospace and military equipment manufacturer] and ULA [a Lockheed-Boeing space venture] breathed sighs of relief as the US Senate voted overwhelmingly to exempt rocket engines from a sanctions bill targeting Iran and Russia. The amendment to the sanctions measure exempted RD-180 engines used by ULA in the first stage of its Atlas V booster and the RD-181 engines Orbital ATK uses in the first stage of its Antares launch vehicle. Both engines are produced by NPO Energomash of Russia».
And the really funny thing is that the Atlas V rocket launches US spy satellites. On 1 March NASA reported the seventieth mission by an Atlas V, when «a final launch verification took place at T-16 seconds, leading to the start sequence of the RD-180 engine at the base of the Atlas V core at T-2.7 seconds». It would be too much to expect them to admit that the RD-180 is made in Russia.
The US Senate and House of Representatives support imposition of sanctions all round the world on the most principled grounds — except when their actions would interfere with the profits of the US aerospace industry and Washington’s ability to spy on Russia from space.
The International Space Station is a heart-warming example of US-Russia teamwork which is anathema to every Senator and member of the House of Representatives. Not one of them has ever mentioned the gratitude the US owes Russia for its many years of willing cooperation. As recorded by NASA on 28 July — at the height of the Senate’s war-crazed anti-Russia hysteria — «This morning, a trio of astronauts will make their way to the International Space Station, launching on top of a Russian Soyuz rocket from Kazakhstan. They will join the three astronauts already living on board the ISS».

Groucho Marx put it so well by saying «Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others». He was joking, but the US Congress is deadly serious. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

Saturday, July 29, 2017


Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Gideon Levy: Israelis Shut Out Palestinian Calls for Freedom -- @therealnews

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Feminism Co-opted -- By Linda Ford


I am a retired history professor and historian of women, a socialist, and a radical feminist.  I know what feminism is, and I know it’s being co-opted.  What is feminism?  How is it defined?  Feminism is the belief in equality for women.  But feminism is being used now for unrelated, or even opposite causes, like war, transgender bathrooms, anti-Russia hysteria and political opportunism.
Large crowds of women descended on Susan B. Anthony’s grave in Rochester, NY, on Election Day 2016.  Anthony’s grave, in what I saw as a desecration, became completely covered with “I Voted” stickers.  I was not surprised to see Mayor Lovely Warren (Democrat) and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (Democrat) prominently present, nor was I astounded that all of the women interviewed were voting for Hillary Clinton (Democrat and not really a feminist).  So therefore I was also not shocked to learn that the whole long queue—at one point taking two hours to get through—was organized by local Democrats.  What would Susan B. Anthony’s reaction have been to this purported homage to her struggle for equal political rights for women?  As a self-proclaimed “revolutionary” for women’s rights, and a woman who always refused to support any “party not fully and unequivocally committed to equal rights for women,” I do not believe she would have welcomed a demonstration instigated in the service of a political party not fully committed to women’s equal rights, and definitely committed to endless war and global, capitalist-based inequality for women.
Anthony advocated egalitarian feminism (as opposed to so-called 19th century “domestic” feminism, limited to power growth within the family), as did her comrade Elizabeth Cady Stanton.  They fought for equal political rights for women first, believing that women’s social and economic rights would follow from women gaining political rights, not without a struggle of course.  They believed, like Alice Paul and the National Woman’s Party of the early 20th century, like the 1970s wave of feminists and (to a large extent) the weatherwomen of the 1980s and the Earth First! women of the 1990s and early 00s, that women are the same as men in intelligence and abilities (with exceptions in obvious physical strength, for some), but many also believed, paradoxically, that women are superior to men because of being inherently nonviolent and compassionate.  Seeking male-female equality through various political, social and cultural means, has never been easy:  it has always been met with, sometimes violent, resistance by the patriarchy.
Feminism has also been constantly thwarted by co-optation.  The champion co-opter of potentially radical social and political movements, is the Democratic Party.  In working on my present book on women political prisoners from the late 19th century to the present, I have seen it again and again.  The American political system has nearly always been dichotomous, and the Democratic Party, especially in the 20th century, with its image and brand as “liberal” and “progressive,” became the party which absorbed labor unrest, black civil rights, and feminism.  Once “feminists” are re-imagined as liberal Democrats, revolution (sorry Susan B.) and radicalism are done.  I remember being part of a Seneca Falls ERA Conference/Celebration in 1998, and witnessing Hillary Clinton’s triumphal entrance into the city.  My remark to the woman standing next to me about Bill Clinton’s questionable personal relations with women (not only affairs, but evidence of procurement, and possible assault and rape) was met with visible horror and a literal turning away from such sentiments.  Hillary Clinton is also not a feminist, if that means actually working to help women in the aggregate gain equal rights and a better life—not as a First Lady, Senator, or Secretary of State.  She definitely, as Barbara Ehrenreich has written, smashed the “myth of innate female superiority” when it came to advocating and wielding violence.  Ehrenreich also notes Clinton’s “racial innuendoes,” along with her “free-floating bellicosity.”  So plastering Susan B. Anthony’s grave with “I Voted” for Hillary stickers was not really appropriate.
I also had a lot of trouble reading that seven historians of women, some of whom I’ve always respected, signed on to a Boston Globe piece in February 2017, that equates the very early, and very brave, abolitionist/women’s rights advocate Angelina Grimke’s speech to the Massachusetts legislature in 1838, with Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (Democrat, MA) partisan attempts in the Senate to discredit President Trump’s choice for attorney general, Jeff Sessions.  Warren had every right to do that, but it hardly takes the same amount of courage as being the first ever woman to speak before a hostile male audience on the serious subject of abolition.  And, august women historians, Donald Trump (and the GOP) is hardly a picnic (although I personally think he perfectly represents what America is), but he defeated Clinton because she is very unpopular and apparently her campaign people bungled the PR/money necessary to win, not because (as the Democrats and the “deep state” and corporate media people who love them will tell you) “the Russians were targeting her campaign.” [!]  Dear fellow women historians, where is your (credible) evidence?  Your context?  Your rational explanations for this Russian targeting?  These are seven very good, very co-opted feminists.  As is Terry O’Neill, former president of NOW, who, in the euphoria of the (Democratic) March for Truth in Washington last summer, complained that her “entire mission” of electing “good, progressive feminist [Democratic] candidates to office “ is going to be ruined because “a hostile, foreign government has installed a puppet as president of the United States.”  Seriously?!  Seriously co-opted.
Feminism is also co-opted and mocked by popular culture, in so many ways.  You have ugly sexist humor at the Oscars in 2013 via host Seth MacFarlane singing “We Saw Your Boobs”—which, right now is all you will see of 99% of supposedly privileged female celebrities, the female body being objectified and reduced yet again to sex object, even though we 70s feminists fought so hard to change all that.  We have denials, in mass media magazines, of college rape culture, in spite of vast evidence to the contrary, with, in 2014, Rolling Stone throwing their investigative reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely relentlessly under the bus for her (pro-women) story on the University of Virginia’s rape culture and (ironically) the denial of its existence by university authorities and ( surprise!) the police.  Women’s status/image/power in the culture have been rapidly sliding backwards since the 70s and 80s.  Even feminist pop icons like Wonder Woman, have been co-opted.
In a way, Wonder Woman also represents the contradictions of radical, egalitarian feminism.  Her creator, William Moulton Marston, wanted to show female superiority, and so placed her origins in all-female Amazon society.  I’ve—as a feminist—always loved the idea of Amazon society, whether as historical reality (there is evidence) or Greek and Roman myth.  In both cases, Amazon society is a women-run matriarchy, led by strong, capable women warriors, warriors who did go to war for more than self-defense, although they apparently were always up against stronger armies.  Marston’s superior Amazon society was also, although featuring women warriors, a peace-loving society.  Hence Wonder Woman was tasked to bring her superpowers to the service of a peaceful world:  she would save the world from violence and evil.  She was also a female superhero, personifying Anthony and Paul’s feminism whose “ideal is strength,” as did the Amazons of history and myth.
So now we have Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman, the movie, and again, feminism is co-opted, this time in the service of what Glen Ford of black agenda report calls the War Party.  The New York Times’ review of “Wonder Woman” said the movie highlights Wonder Woman’s “sacred duty to bring peace to the world,” although admitting it took a lot of killing to do it.  There is, therefore, this Orwellian “war is peace” aspect to the film.  The Wonder Woman I knew and loved was never this bloodthirsty, seeming to revel in the violence and the fight.  She was always the strong character—female superhero!—she did not, as goddess and superhero, have an equal and/or romantic relationship with Captain Steve Trevor, always portrayed as weak and in need of rescue.  I also had a problem with the actress Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, a woman, in real life, very much in the service of Israeli aggressive military might, even when that might was turned against the children of Gaza in 2014.  Wonder Woman here, as Jonathan Cook recently wrote in an excellent piece on Mondoweiss, is disguised as someone practicing “humanitarian intervention,” à la neo-liberal imperialists like Hillary Clinton.  Wonder Woman, in this movie, is promoting aggressive western military domination.  Amazonian feminism, women warriors ruling their own world, or a superhero woman saving the world without bringing more violence to it, is co-opted.
The ideal of feminism is being muddied on numerous fronts.  Jeremiad writer, and a hero of mine, Chris Hedges, recently wrote of transgender women accusing “radical feminists” of being “patriarchal” for defining women as someone born female, with the requisite equipment, and then unfairly excluding people who choose to changeover.  Well—why do you want to join an oppressed group?  (How many transgenders are we talking about?)  And women are an oppressed group.  Ask single mothers who cannot make ends meet.  Ask all working women who (according to NOW) make between 47 to 73 cents, based on class and race, to the male dollar?  Ask women who suffer catcalls, insults, workplace harassment, and an alarming rise in domestic and campus violence, and violence in the military and from police.  Ask women who remain out of the Constitution, with no Equal Rights Amendment in sight, without equal protection (Title IX is for federally funded schools and sports teams and see how equally that works), without equal political representation, without a decent, strong, respectful image in the culture.  We have a thoroughly militarized, patriarchal culture—discounts to servicemen, “thank you for your service” on entertainment talk shows, Air Force flyovers at football games, camouflage clothing everywhere—and huge military budgets for the huge imperial/global/capitalist enterprise that is America—bipartisan, backed by popular culture, and co-opting feminists in its service.  Oh, we need feminism, real, radical feminism, to fight a patriarchy that is alive, well and thriving.

Palestinian Protesters Defend Their "Right to Exist" -- Mariam Barghouti Reports from Ramallah

Monday, July 24, 2017

@leecamp: URGENT--Congress Considering Bipartisan Bill To Make Political Activism A Felony!

Background on the bill from Glenn Greenwald & Ryan Grim:

Seattle PI (Joel Connelly) on Cantwell's Support for bill:

@LeeCamp says:  NOW'S THE TIME TO ACT!  

Senate bill 720

CALL CANTWELL!  1 (202) 224-3441



BUT CALL ALL THESE REPS:  Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Adam Smith, Derek Kilmer, Dave Reichert, Rick Larsen, Jaime Herrera-Butler, Dan Newhouse  

FYI:  @SaneProgressive has a youtube that calls these bills a criminalization of protest against the Palestinian genocide:  (language not safe for work)

@SaneProgressive: Dems and Repubs Are Trying to Criminalize Protest of A Genocide in Palestine

Thursday, July 20, 2017

John McCain’s Legacy of Bloodlust & Warmongering

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

"New York Times Beats War Drums Against Iran"--ESSENTIAL TO WATCH from @therealnews

Vijay Prashad and Trita Parsi join Paul Jay to discuss the New York Times article, 'Iran Dominates in Iraq After U.S. 'Handed the Country Over''

Clarifies the confusion around U.S. Iraq/Iran policies.

"New York Times Joins Trump and Saudi Arabia in Targeting Iran"--MUST WATCH by @therealnews

ARTICLE TURNS THE FACTS ON THEIR HEAD -- [paraphrase of Prof. Sabah Alnasseri]

Sunday, July 16, 2017


Saturday, July 15, 2017

Tupac Talks Donald Trump & Greed in America in 1992 Interview | MTV News

+ Come back, Tupac, your country needs you…

                                 --Jeffrey St. Clair at Counterpunch

Thursday, July 13, 2017

"House Panel Votes to Debate Post-9/11 Blank Check for War" + NKorea Initially Supportive of Nuclear Weapons Ban


More info (excerpt):

De-Authorize the Use of Military Force

Last Thursday the U.S. House Appropriations Committee unanimously passed an amendment that would — if passed by the full Congress — repeal, after an 8-month delay, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress just after September 11, 2001, and used as a justification for wars ever since.
Also last week, the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously passed three resolutions strongly urging Congress to move funding from militarism to human needs, rather than — as President Trump’s budget proposal would do — moving money in the opposite direction. One of these resolutions, introduced by the Mayor of Ithaca, N.Y., closely resembled an initial draft that I had produced, and which people had successfully passed some variation of in several cities.
Some of the points made in the “whereas” clauses of the resolution are rarely acknowledged. This was one:
“WHEREAS, fractions of the proposed military budget could provide free, top-quality education from pre-school through college, end hunger and starvation on earth, convert the U.S. to clean energy, provide clean drinking water everywhere it’s needed on the planet, build fast trains between all major U.S. cities, and double non-military U.S. foreign aid rather than cutting it.”