Management of Savagery exposed how detached from reality these people are. They do not want to confront the reality that the U.S. relied on Islamic State militants in Syria to pressure the Syrian government. That eventually pushed Russia to back the Syrian military and its efforts to rid Syria of jihadist elements. They say nothing about how Turkey and Saudi Arabia has funneled millions and tons of weapons into Syria to aid any opposition group that will fight the Syrian regime, regardless of whether this means terrorists are effectively armed.
An array of Gulf countries, pro-Israel lobbyists, and individuals from the defense industry maintain a commitment to “rebels” in Syria, even as an uprising hijacked by Islamic fundamentalists dithers. They are disappointed the CIA backed away from sending advanced TOW missiles and communications equipment to militant groups to fight Assad’s regime. They care little about the costs of meddling in a country in a manner that elevates jihadists.
If they have to resort to exaggerating actual examples of human rights abuses in order to drum up support for war, they will, even if that makes it possible to discredit valiant efforts for justice. And that is why they do not like it when journalists, like Blumenthal and Khalek, travel to Syria.
... what we need is not ‘no growth’ but ‘eco-socialism’. It is not a choice between global warming and ‘no growth’ recession and depression for billions; but between capitalist production disaster or socialist planning. Green capitalism won’t work, as the IMF paper hints at, and a Green New Deal won’t be enough if the capitalist mode of production for profit still dominates. But under democratic planning we can control unnecessary consumption and return resources to the environment in a way to keep the planet, human beings and nature as balanced as possible. We can “innovate”, create new things, but still balance our ecological inputs and outputs. It’s a practical possibility, but time is running out.
ICYMI: It has not yet been shown that homosexual or bisexual orientation is determined at birth, quite the contrary
... demonstrated in a recent paper for Family Research Council, studies based on four large, population-based, longitudinal data sets, drawn from such surveys, all demonstrate that significant change in each of the elements of sexual orientation is possible. In one survey of “same-sex attracted respondents,” up to 38 percent of men and 53 percent of women “changed to heterosexuality” in only a six-year period. [Source]
Most researchers prior to the 1970s believed, as many still do today, that homosexual attractions are primarily a developmental result of childhood experiences. There are some patterns that appear frequently in the life histories of those with same-sex attractions. These include poor bonding with the same-sex parent or peers, or having been a victim of child sexual abuse.
I'm old-school on this issue and will remain so until there's compelling evidence to change my mind. I do understand that epigenetics has an influence and that, that was not addressed in the linked article. However, epigenetics is something that can be changed in real time via changes in behavior.
I think this is pretty good advice: Charity on the Internet: How to identify scammers
The points raised by Tulsi Gabbard's campaign are completely valid and worthy.
When I first heard of the list of polls, I went and took a look. My immediate reaction was that the list was skewed extremely heavily to TV-media and did not include many well-established and reputable polling outfits. My first suspicion was that the DNC was likely leaned on by the TV networks not only airing the "debates" but running them as lowest-common-denominator, cheap entertainment rather than serious events.
I really don't like the current system for choosing political leadership at all. The current system is specifically designed against the general population.
... is it due to a core ambivalence that touches deep sensitivities about the myths we live by – held by men as well as women? Is it simply unpalatable that numerous of the elites who rule us – we America, the last best hope of humankind – and whom we admire are in fact among the scum of the earth?
Jeremy Corbyn, this is how you handle right-wing Zionists and those who wrongfully call others anti-Semitic
You stand up to them. You support the right of people to tell it as they see it about Palestine and Israel.
Rep Ayanna Pressley on Israel's Ban: “Bigoted, Short-Sighted and Cruel”:
These are the words [“Bigoted, Short-Sighted and Cruel”] tweeted by Rep. Ayanna Pressley in response to the Israeli decision to ban the entry of Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib. The story has a striking resemblance to South Africa and Rhodesia blocking the entry of African American Democratic Representative Charles C. Diggs Junior in January 1972.
This one is especially good:
26. “Mueller concluded that hackers from Russia’s military intelligence agency, known as the GRU, attacked Democratic targets in spring 2016 and removed hundreds of gigabytes of information. They created online personas — Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks — to transfer some of the files to WikiLeaks and publicly claim responsibility for the hacks, falsely disavowing any Russian ties.”
WikiLeaks states that the sources for the various materials from the Democratic Party are diverse, and were circulated by different actors. The Democratic Party itself recognizes that its servers were attacked for two years before the election. Wikileaks has said that its source is not the Russian state, nor any state agent.
The forensic report that attributes the alleged extraction of information to “Russian state hackers” was written by a private company hired by the Democratic Party itself. The Department of Justice did not make its own independent expert analysis.
On the other hand, WikiLeaks was not the initial medium that published materials from the Democratic Party. Numerous organizations and media in the US published material, allegedly, coming from Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. This includes the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Politico, Buzzfeed, The Intercept, and The Hill.
The materials published by WikiLeaks were reprinted and/or reported in many media outlets, including the BBC, NBC, ABC, The Guardian, Fox News, and USA Today. However, only WikiLeaks is being persecuted for publishing such information, which is truthful and in the public interest.
We all know the attack against Trump wasn't couched as allegations but known facts. We all know Hillary Clinton and her campaign said the Russian government hacked and that there was collusion. We also know Barack Obama was still in office while supporting Hillary Clinton for President and that under Obama's watch, the "intelligence community's" fiction-based analysis was used to attack Trump from within that very "intelligence community" so Trump would not win or if he were to win, be severely weakened and open to impeachment based upon totally unsubstantiated allegations. We know none of the allegations stood up under scrutiny.
All of that constitutes an attempt coup against the government of the US.
We also know the "intelligence community" under Obama is now claiming it didn't need evidence but only did analysis. However, criminal warrants require real probable cause, not mere no-evidence, no-facts analysis (mere feelings or desires).
Here's the deal, if the "intelligence community's" analysis is trusted and sufficient enough that the entire US government is still pointing the finger at the Russian government for hacking this, that, and the other (without any actual evidence of same), then why shouldn't the "intelligence community's" so-called analysis via the Steele dossier (bought and paid for by the Democrats from, ironically, Russians) be grounds enough for the "intelligence" court (FISA) to issue a criminal warrant? After all, the US is punishing the Russian government and people with harsh sanctions based upon the same level of "analysis." Sanctioning a nation without probable cause is actually illegal under international law to which the US has obligated itself.
For the Republicans to leave the false concept in place that the Russian government is a "malign actor" towards the US as shown by the alleged hacking and then to claim there weren't sufficient grounds to lean on the Steele dossier to conduct a criminal investigation with warrant in hand is simply stupid.
How can the law and government have it both ways?
Either the Republicans shoot down the idea we know the Russian government hacked the US or the Democrats will be left with the logical argument I just spelled out. A good lawyer could make mincemeat out of a side that doesn't believe the "intelligence community" only when it's convenient and does believe it or trust it when there's something perverse to be gained.
There was no collusion, and the Russian government did not do all the hacking the "intelligence community" has claimed the Russian government has done. That "intelligence community" has shown zero proof the Russian government hacked anything let alone all things claimed by that "intelligence community."
If the Republicans would only rub some working brain cells together, they might come to realize just how great it would be for the entire world were the US and Russia to get along famously. Do they really think there's more money to be made with the US and Russia at odds than cooperating? How much dumber could it get than that? Do they really think whatever money is being made by whomever is worth it to lie and risk war? Some people really are that dumb, obviously.
Wow, what a bad article: "Exclusive: FBI document warns conspiracy theories are a new domestic terrorism threat"
I could go on and on about why the article is bad. Let me point out a few glaring issues.
1. Pizzagate was not a monolithic concept.
It ranged from the issue that there is pedophilia in high places, which we all know to be true, to the fact that there were strange issues with some of the people pointed to by more ardent "Pizzagate" adherents (for one, Podesta's extremely disturbing statues in his house) to the extreme version of Pizzagate that did result in the insane belief that children were being sexually abused in the basement that didn't exist.
The point is that beliefs or questions concerning versions of things and "official" versions of things vary greatly and that people shouldn't be all lumped together to be denounced simply because some aspects of some people's versions of "theories" prove way off the mark.
2. The article points to Yahoo News as a source of proof concerning Seth Rich when the fact is, the Yahoo News article supposedly proving Russia was behind the Seth Rich story or that the Seth Rich story has no merit (isn't reasonable or rational) has been thoroughly debunked.
A good article would cite the articles that disagree on the merits with the Yahoo News' version.
3. The article leaves out the fact that the Russiagate (conspiracy) narrative that led to the Mueller investigation has completely and utterly collapsed.
That conspiracy didn't even rate being called a theory, as we know it was made up wholesale by the real deep-state, which directed John Brennan and his ilk to stop Trump with whatever lies it would take, not that Trump is, or ever was, a good guy.
If that conspiracy theory had succeeded, how much violence would have resulted in the world and possibly domestically?