tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16686730165429520572024-03-13T21:14:41.989-07:00Soldiers For Peace InternationalOur mission is to join individuals and groups working in different ways to ensure that our children live in a rational, sustainable world.
When enough people abandon the belief that war is inevitable,it will become unthinkable.
War is conducted for corporate Empire. Therefore,the first step to ending war is ending corporate control of the US government.
All social justice efforts lead to the end of war, the ultimate injustice. Those who work for justice are Soldiers For Peace.Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.comBlogger171125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-41618062771766775472023-09-29T13:43:00.006-07:002023-09-29T13:43:29.804-07:00RABBIT HOLES AND MEN BEHIND CURTAINS <p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Newsreader;"><i><b><br /><br /> </b></i></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE7zSd_gLmeJPSU2ThuPot0qqEpXnRdXzK9APWUWEQr6TLrQK5_VvGU7djZ9-ftmnsyoQozphKwMqbblqR4y1pfQN-hZ7xXvUS20Nc5e7rbjrD5aFlDMDrCJAFGLVzKUIDmtY1yxmwXNOzBjOPTszVQX-UMNZLlHnj-Duv3oCeg7WbHegMWj0jrnTMxgA/s1023/Alice%20in%20Wonderland.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="535" data-original-width="1023" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE7zSd_gLmeJPSU2ThuPot0qqEpXnRdXzK9APWUWEQr6TLrQK5_VvGU7djZ9-ftmnsyoQozphKwMqbblqR4y1pfQN-hZ7xXvUS20Nc5e7rbjrD5aFlDMDrCJAFGLVzKUIDmtY1yxmwXNOzBjOPTszVQX-UMNZLlHnj-Duv3oCeg7WbHegMWj0jrnTMxgA/w540-h384/Alice%20in%20Wonderland.webp" width="540" /></a></b></i></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><br /><br />If you're like me, at some point in your life you realized that many of our most cherished beliefs are lies. Westerners are taught that their governments are democratic, that they don't go to war unless they are compelled to (except for past wars, of course) and that we believe in the principles of self-determination for all nations.<br /><br />As events my eyes have been opened to the fact that none of these things are true, I've embarked on a sometimes frantic search for what is true, in the hope that we can collectively still do something to change the trajectory of human history, which appears to be hurtling toward self-destruction. <br /><br />Caitlin Johnstone is a kindred spirit, a particularly gifted writer with a deep understanding of events and an inimitable style of explaining them in the context of a well thought out humanist philosophy and a deep love for all that should be held sacred. If you are not familiar with her work, you will likely be amazed at how she sums up her journey to understand the reality of the power structure of humanity and its significance in the universal scheme of things, suggesting that the only way to accept the truth is to practice a form of radical acceptance.</b></i><br /><br /><br />You dive down rabbit hole after rabbit hole, searching for the man behind the curtain. You’ve seen enough to be convinced that everything you’ve been taught about the world is false, and now it’s just a matter of finding out who’s really responsible for making such a mess of things.</span><p></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Newsreader; line-height: calc(1em + 0.75rem); margin-block-end: 0px; margin-block-start: var(--wp--preset--spacing--50); margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; max-width: var(--wp--style--global--content-size);"><span style="font-size: large;">And for a while, your search seems fruitful. You discover that you don’t really live in a democracy like you were taught where the public influences government behavior using their votes, or even in a separate sovereign nation like you learned in school. You discover that your country is part of a globe-spanning power structure which effectively functions as an empire — the most powerful empire ever to exist. And you discover that this empire has drivers who aren’t beholden to the electorate in any meaningful way, acting not to advance the interests of the public but to advance the agenda of planetary domination.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large;">So who are the drivers of the empire? You dive down more rabbit holes. You discover secretive government agencies with longtime operatives who don’t leave with the outgoing official elected government, but stay on, helping to keep the gears of the empire turning regardless of who voters elect to be the face on the operation. You discover a revolving-door system in which the same empire managers are rotated in and out of positions in the official elected government, working in think tanks and military industrial complex advisory boards and mass media punditry when their party is out of office and rotating back in when their turn comes back around. You discover plutocrats who use their vast wealth to influence government policy via campaign donations, influential think tanks, mass media control and corporate lobbying, who often operate with — and profit from — a tremendous amount of overlap with government agencies. You discover organizations and institutions in which the wealthy and powerful congregate and coordinate to advance their agendas, often with a very high degree of secrecy.<br /><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Newsreader; line-height: calc(1em + 0.75rem); margin-block-end: 0px; margin-block-start: var(--wp--preset--spacing--50); margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; max-width: var(--wp--style--global--content-size);"><span style="font-size: large;">But in all this rabbit holing and discovering, you still don’t find any man behind the curtain. You come to see that any of the people you’ve been looking at could die tomorrow and the imperial machine would trudge on uninterrupted. There could be a giant violent revolution and these people could be guillotined by the thousands, and unless drastic changes were made to the systems which gave rise to them, someone else would just step in to fill their shoes.<br /><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Newsreader; line-height: calc(1em + 0.75rem); margin-block-end: 0px; margin-block-start: var(--wp--preset--spacing--50); margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; max-width: var(--wp--style--global--content-size);"><span style="font-size: large;">So you start researching the systems. You start researching economic systems, financial systems, how resources are distributed, how money is allocated, how labor is exploited, how wealth is extracted. You come to see how our civilization has been turned into a giant wealth-generating machine for a class of wealthy exploiters using propaganda, property laws, artificial scarcity, enclosure of the commons and theft from indigenous populations, all wound around this made-up concept of money which translates directly into political power under our current systems. Because the people who are most adept at obtaining massive amounts of wealth/power are those who are sufficiently lacking in empathy to do whatever it takes to obtain it, we naturally find ourselves ruled by sociopaths. And we always will, until those systems change.<br /><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Newsreader; line-height: calc(1em + 0.75rem); margin-block-end: 0px; margin-block-start: var(--wp--preset--spacing--50); margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; max-width: var(--wp--style--global--content-size);"><span style="font-size: large;">You dig even deeper. You discover that you haven’t just been fed false information about how governments and nations work, you’ve been fed false information about even your most basic assumptions about reality. You discover in your own experience that there is no such thing as a separate self; that what we refer to linguistically as “I” and “me” are psychological delusions which underpin most of the suffering and dysfunctionality of the human species. In reality humans are inseparable from the biosphere from whence they emerged, which is in turn inseparable from the universe from whence it emerged, which is in turn inseparable from the Big-Bang-Or-Whatever-It-Was from whence it emerged. Everything is one, and the self is a lie.<br /><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Newsreader; line-height: calc(1em + 0.75rem); margin-block-end: 0px; margin-block-start: var(--wp--preset--spacing--50); margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; max-width: var(--wp--style--global--content-size);"><span style="font-size: large;">And you realize that this is true of all the oligarchs and empire managers you’ve been staring at as well. They’re not separate entities acting with agency in the world, they’re clusters of conditioning and trauma which they inherited from their ancestors, which was passed down through their evolutionary heritage from the chaos and confusion inherent in existence as small prey animals who walked the earth millions of years ago. They’re just swirling eddies in a sea of ineffable energy like anyone else, sleepwalking through life being whipped around by unconscious forces within themselves that they do not understand.<br /><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Newsreader; line-height: calc(1em + 0.75rem); margin-block-end: 0px; margin-block-start: var(--wp--preset--spacing--50); margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; max-width: var(--wp--style--global--content-size);"><span style="font-size: large;">And you realize then that there is no man behind the curtain, and there never was. You ripped aside curtain after curtain hoping to find the man, and all you found was a man-shaped hole in the universe.<br /><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Newsreader; line-height: calc(1em + 0.75rem); margin-block-end: 0px; margin-block-start: var(--wp--preset--spacing--50); margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; max-width: var(--wp--style--global--content-size);"><span style="font-size: large;">And you’re not even mad. In fact, you find it hilarious. You laugh and you laugh at the silliness of it all. You laugh at how seriously we’re all taking this game of separateness and enmity, and how seriously you’d been taking it just moments before. You laugh at how ultimately innocent we all are in all this, even the worst among us. You laugh at our cuteness. You laugh at this play of forms. And the universe laughs back. A laughing buddha, laughing at a universe made of laughing buddhas.<br /><br /></span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Newsreader; line-height: calc(1em + 0.75rem); margin-block-end: 0px; margin-block-start: var(--wp--preset--spacing--50); margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; max-width: var(--wp--style--global--content-size);"><span style="font-size: large;">And you see, as you wipe the tears from your face, that everything is unfolding as it must. The universe is becoming more and more capable of perceiving itself — first with life, then with humans, then with the steady advancements in science and technology and psychology and awakening — and there’s no reason to assume that this ongoing explosion of perception will stop. We’re going to figure things out eventually. Consciousness keeps expanding. The light keeps getting brighter. The truth can only hide for so long.<br /><br />This article was originally published in <a href="https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2023/09/12/rabbit-holes-and-men-behind-curtains/">Caitlin's blog </a>on September 12, 2023.</span></p>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-71787303812121251122022-10-14T16:47:00.015-07:002022-10-14T19:00:51.475-07:00WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE?<p>You can't understand what is happening in Ukraine without understanding what came before. Regardless of whether you think the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was an appropriate response to the situation at the time, to understand the way to peace requires that you understand how the war started long before February 24, 2022.<br /><br />No one tells the story better than Oliver Stone.<br <b><br /><br /></p><br /><iframe width="875" height="365" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yxau6qeWZ4w" title="Ukraine On Fire 2016 Documentary by Oliver Stone" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-50734262633849711592022-06-06T15:46:00.002-07:002022-06-06T15:46:16.344-07:00 CREATING CONSENSUS ON UKRAINE<p><br /></p><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdQR2U6zbSGTFIhFPx-5P9UPfdTUFsguv05cEbOwd46rKQv5KOU5z_Fdc1Sbc46lOdWi4zhtS6Oq7HVrE53cfOwi5izXkbZ7F8qDNX3_5RkQmCO1_05uDs71R5zIx1YiFY9eFROZCfW2t5tdCLXj4ipFfZEz4ULAFYg3LSMokJQmuKNol0A-gjGIf1/s269/OIP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="font-size: 14pt; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="198" data-original-width="269" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdQR2U6zbSGTFIhFPx-5P9UPfdTUFsguv05cEbOwd46rKQv5KOU5z_Fdc1Sbc46lOdWi4zhtS6Oq7HVrE53cfOwi5izXkbZ7F8qDNX3_5RkQmCO1_05uDs71R5zIx1YiFY9eFROZCfW2t5tdCLXj4ipFfZEz4ULAFYg3LSMokJQmuKNol0A-gjGIf1/w460-h249/OIP.jpg" width="460" /></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />The antiwar community has fractured at a time when it most needs to speak with
one voice to end the war in Ukraine. About all we can agree on is that the war
is a terrible thing that needs to be stopped. Beyond that, reasonable people
disagree about messaging, and unreasonable people demonize those who disagree.
The result is that average Americans who don’t usually follow politics, let
alone international affairs, form opinions based on emotional responses to what
they hear in mainstream media rather than what may be most likely to promote peace.
This is true despite the fact that most would say that peace is what they want.
<br />
<br />
The ability to influence American thinking through emotional appeals is what
those with the power to <a href="https://www.opednews.com/articles/If-all-wars-are-based-on-l-by-Rick-Staggenborg--Humanitarian-Intervention_Ned_Responsibility-To-Protect-200902-863.html">manipulate
the media</a> count on to serve imperialism’s aims. If we can at least agree that how we frame our
response is important, people who sincerely want to do something to end the war
might be able to agree on what message would most effectively sway public
opinion in a way that might influence our government to act in the interest of
peace.<br />
<br />
The most fundamental disagreement is over whether it’s necessary to call Russia
out as solely or even primarily at fault for the war, or whether it is important
to provide the context needed to understand the US role in creating the
conditions that led it to decide that it had no choice but to respond to Ukrainian
actions in Donbass with military force. <br />
<br />
Given that our goal is to influence public opinion, it’s understandable that
most peace groups have opted to follow the lead of politicians and mainstream commentators
and preface every statement with a condemnation of Russia. After all, since
they believe these accusations are justified, they fear being seen as supportive
of Russia if they only focus on what the US has done that promotes war and what
it hasn’t done that might have prevented it. Some peace groups go so far as to
ignore clear US provocations as unimportant. Since it was Russia that invaded,
they believe that their proper job is to wave Ukrainian flags and protest
Russia’s actions, despite the reality that this will have no beneficial effect
on the course of the war. <br />
<br />
Other peace activists feel that either approach absolves the US of
responsibility for creating conditions that led to the conflict. Believing the
US actually initiated the conflict, they argue that dating its onset as
February 24 is not only misleading, but false. They see the conflict as having started
long before the Russian invasion and argue that knowing what choices Putin had
is relevant to assigning blame.<br />
<br />
The truth is <b>that <i>we don’t have to agree on who is at fault if we don’t
make that an issue.</i> </b>As a psychotherapist with training in family
therapy, I know from experience that focusing on who is responsible for a
problem almost never leads to a satisfactory solution. And from a practical
standpoint, placing sole blame on Russia is counterproductive not only because
it splits the antiwar movement, but because to much of the public it provides a
justification for an aggressive US response. Avoiding a conflict over whether
Russia should be characterized as the sole aggressor is why many want to limit
the message to demanding that the US 1) stop arming Ukraine, 2) declare it will never support Ukraine joining NATO,
and 3) push Ukraine to negotiate without preconditions.<br />
<br />
From a family therapy perspective, trying to keep the discussion focused on a
solution would certainly be the approach to take if the US actually wanted to
end the conflict. Unfortunately, that <a href="https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/09/is-the-us-hindering-much-needed-diplomatic-efforts/">doesn’t
seem to be the case.</a> The effect of sending increasingly lethal weapons and imposing
sanctions that primarily harm civilians is to prolong the war and increase
casualties of both soldiers and civilians on both sides. <br />
<br />
Recent reports indicate that the effort to help a <a href="https://archive.ph/2u4Y5">depleted</a> Ukrainian military drive Russia
out of Donbass is <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/30/scott-ritter-phase-three-in-ukraine/">futile</a>.
However, this approach is very profitable for a weapons industry that generously
funds the elections of members of Congress willing to serve its interests,
which is no doubt why any debate about how the US should proceed assumes that
it will involve continuing a strategy that has proven to result in arming
extremists when used in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. And yes, there are <a href="https://twitter.com/i/status/1497747535783411714">extremists</a> with
significant <a href="https://thesaker.is/the-ukrainian-rabbit-hole-of-radicalism/">influence</a>
in Ukraine despite media denials.<br />
<br />
Clearly, the focus on providing weapons has redirected the public’s attention
from the question of how to end the war to how best to punish Russia,
regardless of how US strategy affect Ukrainian civilians. This is not by
accident, but by design. That’s why it is necessary to challenge the distortions,
omissions and outright lies that are used to influence public opinion to conform
with the goals of American imperialism. Unfortunately, the inability to agree
on the facts is what has led to the stark divisions among those wanting to do
something to make the war to end. That is we have to put aside our pride and
listen to each other to understand why a minority firmly believes that the
consensus opinion of the majority is based on misplaced trust in mainstream
media. <br />
<br />
Most Americans think they are informed if they read mainstream media and watch
a variety of TV news sources. Antiwar activists know differently, because we know
we have been lied into war repeatedly, at least from Vietnam through Syria. Unfortunately,
like the general public, many peace proponents have no idea how information
that challenges the government’s narrative is being systematically suppressed in <a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/online-censorship-ukraine-russa-google-facebook-twitter/280304/#.Ymsr88nULS0.facebook">unprecedented</a>
ways. <br />
<br />
It's always been true that truth is the first casualty of war. In today’s hybrid
warfare, it is more critical than ever to control the information domain. The
way news is presented by government officials and approved media <a href="https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/hj/chomskyhermanpropmodel.pdf">frames
the way most people think about US foreign policy</a>. This is why the idea of sending
ever more powerful weapons to prolong a military conflict that cannot be won is
never challenged. While the ultimate <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/30/scott-ritter-phase-three-in-ukraine/">outcome</a>
of Russia’s invasion cannot be predicted with certainty, the one thing we know for
sure is that providing increasingly lethal weaponry will lead to more death on
both sides and do nothing to promote stability in the region.<br />
<br />
Of course, there is much more that could be said about <span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">the tremendous amount of disinformation in the
mainstream media regarding Ukraine. While much of it is relevant to
understanding the situation, it is far beyond the scope of this essay. I can
only recommend that those who are inclined to believe what they read or hear in
government-approved media look at any of the credible alternative sources that present
evidence of critical facts that are being withheld from them.</span><p class="MsoNormal">
<br />
A good way to find them is to look at the<a href="http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html"> list</a> of websites that Prop or
Not, a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/">shadowy
group</a> that claims to be the arbiter of “reliable sources,” claims should
not be trusted. Interspersed among many dubious websites listed are some of the
most informative sources of information contradicting the mainstream narrative.
These are sites with authors that include prominent <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2021/12/08/robert-parry-whos-telling-the-big-lie-on-ukraine/">investigative
journalists</a> and veterans of the <a href="https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2022/05/29/ray-mcgovern-and-scott-ritter-on-ukraine-russia-china/">CIA</a>,
<a href="https://stage.mintpressnews.com/author/william-binney/">NSA</a>, <a href="https://www.opednews.com/author/author4347.html">State Department</a>, <a href="https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/">high ranking White House positions</a>
and <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/30/scott-ritter-phase-three-in-ukraine/">military
intelligence</a>. They cite their
sources, which gives their articles far more credibility than the mostly anonymous
sources favored by the New York Times and Washington Post when reporting on
many of the same stories. <br />
<br />
I urge anyone interested in finding a common message to present to the public to
read the <a href="https://uspeacecouncil.org/a-manufactured-crisis-in-ukraine-is-victimizing-the-worlds-peoples/">statement</a>
released by the US Peace Council.<br />
<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<br /> </span></span>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-799340721601673092022-03-18T11:54:00.005-07:002022-03-18T11:54:54.821-07:00HOW DO WE STAND BY UKRAINE?<p> <br /><br /> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiI5LgmzVW6LIsl3kMPoj-w5nIeOr63sO0w42MACwKRSEphSy91F1jhE9Ktd2cGPU4XKWwfHCq7ctR9qqLUgGU-slyNkgObtZIhJOPZhdRfT0Zg64h3PXwmL6vNaoWOmv3-qHXplh7GVEHHjqUpGIz6rs3HzS3nISTEJ-bT09WfWxXBBzAKVxdm-2w_=s330" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="220" data-original-width="330" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiI5LgmzVW6LIsl3kMPoj-w5nIeOr63sO0w42MACwKRSEphSy91F1jhE9Ktd2cGPU4XKWwfHCq7ctR9qqLUgGU-slyNkgObtZIhJOPZhdRfT0Zg64h3PXwmL6vNaoWOmv3-qHXplh7GVEHHjqUpGIz6rs3HzS3nISTEJ-bT09WfWxXBBzAKVxdm-2w_=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-size: large;">The unfolding tragedy of the war in Ukraine has unleashed a torrent of anger among Americans. That's hardly surprising, given the images of dead and injured civilians, especially children, that are streaming into our homes 24 hours a day. The intense emotions aroused have led to a strong urge to act to stop the violence. Demonstrations of solidarity are inspiring, but they aren't going to affect Putin's plans for Ukraine. The question thus is, how do we most effectively stand with Ukraine?</span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br style="background-color: white;" /><span style="background-color: white;">Examples of what not to do abound. Consider:</span><br style="background-color: white;" /><br style="background-color: white;" /><span style="background-color: white;">Most people support the sanctions, despite abundant evidence showing that they </span><a href="https://www.worldfinance.com/special-reports/the-impact-of-economic-sanctions" style="background-color: white;">typically don't work</a><span style="background-color: white;"> and at best achieve only limited success. The logic is to punish the citizens of the sanctioned country, in the hope they will rise up and topple their governments or at least submit to Western demands. It should come as no surprise that this is not a realistic objective in authoritarian societies. The main effect of sanctions is to increase the suffering of the citizens of the targeted country. Madelaine Albright famously admitted that US sanctions on Iraq after the first Gulf War cost the lives of 500,000 children, </span><a href="https://youtu.be/omnskeu-puE" style="background-color: white;">commenting</a><span style="background-color: white;"> that "We think it was worth it." This begs the question of who is this "we?" I certainly hope that it is not the opinion of the majority of Americans. In the present case, why would we want to punish the citizens of Russia for Putin's actions, especially when they are protesting by the tens of thousands on the streets of Russia, putting to shame the pitiful response of Americans to US-led wars.</span><br style="background-color: white;" /><br style="background-color: white;" /><span style="background-color: white;">Most people seem to support the arming of Ukraine, even though many analysts point out that there is ultimately little hope that they can hold up against a determined Russian military whose goal does not appear to be occupation. We're told daily about Putin's willingness to use brutal tactics to achieve his objectives, but we are being assured that the vastly inferior forces of Ukraine are really winning. As a result, people who want to support Ukraine are applauding the brave citizens who are taking up arms and putting their bodies on the line confronting trained soldiers, without apparently realizing that this will not likely change the outcome but will certainly lead to more Ukrainian deaths. There has even been serious consideration of the US providing incentives to NATO countries to send war planes to Ukraine, an act of war against Russia that could lead to the US being forced to directly confront the only other nuclear superpower. More and more, we are hearing arguments for why we can't rule out direct US involvement despite the fact that it could quickly lead to nuclear war.</span><br style="background-color: white;" /><br style="background-color: white;" /><span style="background-color: white;">Anyone who still thinks a no-fly zone is a reasonable option simply isn't listening to reason. As Biden and many others have pointed out, this requires being willing to shoot Russian planes down, which would likely lead to WWIII. Anyone who wants to disregard that risk does not deserve to be taken seriously.</span><br style="background-color: white;" /><br style="background-color: white;" /><span style="background-color: white;">There's a reason that "experts" continue to push policies that are at best futile and at worst, catastrophic. The only realistic alternatives would involve allowing Russia to achieve some of its stated goals. That would lead to the career-killing charge of "appeasement." Career politicians and professional pundits in the West cower at this thought, so much so that the idea would never occur to them. Fortunately, diplomats in both Ukraine and Russia are willing to consider what would be unthinkable for these cheerleaders of imperialism.</span><br style="background-color: white;" /><br style="background-color: white;" /><span style="background-color: white;">According to this </span><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/03/16/ukraine-russia-reportedly-making-significant-progress-toward-15-point-peace-deal?vgo_ee=UT0mzHJkpe2KNfYTVOeU6D4fQJLvPNlJm8xcMs3oa20%3D" style="background-color: white;">article</a><span style="background-color: white;">, progress is being made on a 15-point plan that would recognize legitimate Russian security interests the West ignored in the runup to the war, despite clear warnings from Russia. Among other provisions, Ukraine would alter its constitution to guarantee that it would never join NATO. Had the US simply declared that it would never allow Ukraine to join, the invasion might have been avoided. That the US refused speaks volumes about the intent of the US in its dealings with Russia with regard to Ukraine. Unfortunately, few are listening.</span><br style="background-color: white;" /><br style="background-color: white;" /><span style="background-color: white;">Russia is also insisting on an agreement that Ukraine will not host foreign military bases. Negotiations continue on what kind of security guarantees that Ukraine might get from NATO countries would be acceptable to Russia, while the article does not mention what kind of security guarantees Ukraine would offer the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which have been subjected to continuous assault since the 2014 coup that put the current government in power. The article also does not mention the status of the Russian demand that Ukraine recognize Russia's sovereignty over Crimea, which it has asserted since the region voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia in 2014.</span><br style="background-color: white;" /><br style="background-color: white;" /><span style="background-color: white;">Meanwhile, the battles rage, with increasing loss of life on both sides. If you want to stand for Ukraine, stand for the interests of Ukrainians and common Russians alike and demand that your government stop inflaming the situation with weapons and sanctions and allow real diplomacy to end the killing.</span></span></p>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-36865534541113128682022-03-14T15:48:00.006-07:002022-03-18T11:56:26.464-07:00DOCUMENTS INDICATE UKRAINE PLANNED DONBASS ATTACK WITHIN DAYS OF RUSSIAN INVASION<p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbPHf6saymnLJs1LVlRR-Sw0Spvl1IvRUBGuknf0EoWGBRfZqDeMun-OjM7lZS7ezSATjUfv8COmYqK91DUKi7l2W_hLPbkD0TAIpqlicm3NGX5ip8kZe95nmboQ823E4b3cVCab_QwWZm3ZILDYM2vp-axDulXflbq8QwiPQGlS7qvBKuPipp9Us5=s960" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="510" data-original-width="960" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbPHf6saymnLJs1LVlRR-Sw0Spvl1IvRUBGuknf0EoWGBRfZqDeMun-OjM7lZS7ezSATjUfv8COmYqK91DUKi7l2W_hLPbkD0TAIpqlicm3NGX5ip8kZe95nmboQ823E4b3cVCab_QwWZm3ZILDYM2vp-axDulXflbq8QwiPQGlS7qvBKuPipp9Us5=w353-h220" width="353" /></a></div> <br /> <br /> <br /><span style="background-color: white;">Having </span><a href="https://www.opednews.com/articles/Open-Letter-to-Putin-Lover-by-Rick-Staggenborg--Donbas_Fourth-Estate_Geopolitics_Moral-Panic-220301-686.html" style="background-color: white;">written
recently</a><span style="background-color: white;"> that it may be a bad idea at his time to keep trying to explain why
invading Ukraine should be understood in context, it is with trepidation that I’m
now going to do just that. The reason is that there are </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=4906238139496797&set=pcb.4906250286162249" style="background-color: white;">documents</a><span style="background-color: white;">
that just came to light which, if verified, prove that those who believed that
Russia was trying to prevent a genocide were correct. Of course, if you are in the habit of assuming that any statements released by Russia are by definition false, don't bother reading further. </span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">
<br />
Although you’ve probably never heard since it is never reported in American
media, Russia reported that there were as many as <a href="https://www.rt.com/russia/541829-ukraine-army-deployed-donbass/">125,000 Ukrainian
troops</a> inside the ethnically Russian Donbass region of Ukraine by December
of 2021, when the 8-year old conflict between Ukraine and the breakaway
Republics was heating up again. These troops had been trained and heavily armed
by the US, which had been encouraging Ukraine to forcibly take back. On
February 24<sup>th</sup>, the day the invasion began, Ukraine was clearly
poised to invade the self-declared independent Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The newly revealed records confirm what many of us suspected, that the Ukrainian
invasion was scheduled to occur within days. <br />
<br />
It is very likely that this was apparent to Russian military intelligence,
which would provide a totally different explanation for why the invasion
occurred even as Russia was negotiating with Ukraine than the idea that Putin
was simply “mad” and “wanted to restore the long-lost Russian Empire.” The claim
that Putin was lying about not wanting to invade was based on the fact that he
was conducting a troop buildup while negotiating, and in the end he did invade.
However, taking literally Putin’s statement that Russia had “no plans to invade”
is disingenuous. Obviously, the Russian military buildup meant that they had a
plan, but he said repeatedly that whether there would be war depended entirely
on Ukraine’s actions. It is entirely possible that he would have preferred to
not invade, as he repeatedly indicated. Unless, of course, you start<i> </i>with
the <i>assumption</i> that he is mad.<br />
<br />
Unlike those who believe the US wanted to avoid war, Zelensky understood what
Putin was saying. He called for a halt to inflammatory rhetoric coming from the
US and asked Biden to come to Ukraine underscore the fact that there need be no
war. In the end, Zelensky was put in a position where he had no choice but to refuse
to deescalate the situation by removing troops from Donbass. The video in this <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/04/how-zelensky-made-peace-with-neo-nazis/?fbclid=IwAR1YAcCTaxnRskyjLgN4wDckdrd9ZzPLbonQ8C_IekKe8L7o_oXOeSPXEsM">article</a>
shows why: When he had tried order troops out of Donbass in 2019, <a href="https://twitter.com/i/status/1497747535783411714">neo-Nazis with much
greater power</a> over the government and military than their numbers would
indicate laughed in his face and sent him away. That’s how a Jewish president
came to realize that he had better go along with what these <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfaAyiP8Wuc">US-backed</a> fascists had
in mind.<br />
<br />
So go ahead and hate Putin if it makes you feel better. War is always a choice,
and it is always brutal. Civilians are always killed, even though dead children
make excellent propaganda for those who want to paint a war as one-sided. But
if you want to prevent the next war, for God’s sake try to understand the logic
of both sides of this conflict. More specifically, do whatever you can do to try
and get your government to stop constantly provoking a nuclear power, while
denying its legitimate security interests.<br />
<br />
<b>Below is a transcript of the official Russian Defense Ministry announcement.
The cited documents can be seen <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=4906238646163413&set=pcb.4906250286162249">here</a>.
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>-Translation supplied by
Konstantin Scheglikov. <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></b></span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic";"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">"During a
special military operation, secret documents of the command of the National
Guard of Ukraine came into the possession of Russian military personnel. These
documents confirm the covert preparation by the Kiev regime of an offensive
operation in the Donbass in March 2022.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">The Russian
Defense Ministry publishes the original secret order of the commander of the
National Guard of Ukraine, Colonel General Nikolay Balan, dated January 22, 2022.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">The order "On
the organization of training of the battalion tactical group of the 4th
Operational Brigade to perform combat (special) tasks in the operation of the
united forces as part of the brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine".<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">The document is
addressed to the heads of the northern Kiev, southern Odessa and western
territorial administrations of the National Guard of Ukraine.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">The order, brought
to the command of the National Guard of Ukraine, details a plan for the
preparation of one of the strike groups for offensive actions in the zone of
the so-called "operation of the united forces" in the Donbass.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">The document
approves the organizational and staff structure of the battalion-tactical group
of the 4th operational brigade of the National Guard, the organization of its
comprehensive support and reassignment to the 80th separate airborne assault
Brigade of Ukraine.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">I would like to
emphasize that this brigade from the airborne assault forces of Ukraine has
been trained by American and British instructors in training programs of the
"NATO standard" in Lviv since 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">In accordance with
the order, the Deputy Commander of the National Guard was tasked with
organizing combat coordination of the battalion tactical group of the National
Guard as part of the 80th separate airborne assault brigade of the Armed Forces
of Ukraine from February 7 to February 28, 2022.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">I draw your
attention - as many as five paragraphs of paragraph 4 are devoted to the issues
of careful selection of personnel, examination of all psychologists and
ensuring their high motivation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">To do this, the
National Guard is ordered to provide "visual agitation, information and
propaganda materials, flags, and printing products."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">The Deputy
commander of the National Guard for Personnel was ordered to organize "an
effective system of informational, moral and psychological support for the battalion-tactical
group of the 4th brigade of operational purpose, internal communication of
commanders with subordinates."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">At the same time,
it is important to provide "an explanation to the personnel of management
decisions and the importance of performing upcoming tasks."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">I draw special
attention to the fact that paragraph 12 of the order prohibits sending to the
area of combat coordination and to the place of execution of "combat
special tasks" of the National guardsmen who showed
"unsatisfactory" results of psychological testing according to the
criterion of "readiness for risk".<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">All measures of
the nationalists' combat coordination are ordered to be completed by February
28 in order to further ensure the fulfillment of combat tasks as part of the
Ukrainian "joint forces operation" in the Donbass.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">The document
contains the original signatures of the officials responsible for the tasks of
the command of the National Guard of Ukraine.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">We well remember
the statements of the leadership of the Kiev regime, replicated in February by
the Western media, about the alleged absence of any plans for the armed seizure
of the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics. Their desire to solve all issues
allegedly "by political and diplomatic means".<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">However, the
originals of the secret combat documents of the National Guard of Ukraine
unequivocally prove the falsity of these statements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">A special military
operation conducted by the Russian Armed Forces since February 24 has
forestalled and thwarted a large-scale offensive by shock groups of Ukrainian
troops on,uncontrolled to Kiev, the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republic in
March of this year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">Thus, only one
question remains unclear so far: how deeply the leadership of the United States
and its NATO allies were involved in the planning and preparation of the
operation to storm the Donbass by the Ukrainian interspecific group of troops
in early March. All those who care so much about peace in Ukraine today."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">The Russian
Defense Ministry publishes the originals of the National Guard's combat order
proving that Ukraine is preparing an offensive on Donbass in March this
year."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;">Source <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRNaoDh__L0&fbclid=IwAR0j0k8hYnsIpMsrV85mKgihUc07oDmlDclJvI1Bm5Ivz2QKPEQObMu04n4" target="_blank"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: black; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-themecolor: text1; padding: 0in;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRNaoDh__L0</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-right: -.1in;"><span style="background: silver; color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-highlight: silver; mso-themecolor: text1;"><a href="https://vk.com/public207684894?w=wall-207684894_53&fbclid=IwAR2A3k_uSFl83ZxzWYuDhdVEAERoHT0MZ_ClA7mzGy6jepBM2XfgeOxGYHg" target="_blank"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: black; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-themecolor: text1; padding: 0in;">https://vk.com/public207684894?w=wall-207684894_53</span></a></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI Historic"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-28726291924890996622022-02-21T14:25:00.001-08:002022-02-22T18:29:25.855-08:00UNDERSTANDING UKRAINE<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgRYsaPAg4Y5OdoE21MTRJsN_yOTguqwDnINLvQkru7RblAJvkTnGcDWhQXEW4ch4S0n5fFid5MoNfCMlCcplSZQulUZUr-KeaJn7NhSEHNf4XSg7SG3_Ua5LRjoHkvsqbHl2jhlcPbUrxAnw7GUdKv7vuWu0ckj2W19fkwvEDQ8eF5EALvMw7PIB6B=s150" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="150" data-original-width="150" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgRYsaPAg4Y5OdoE21MTRJsN_yOTguqwDnINLvQkru7RblAJvkTnGcDWhQXEW4ch4S0n5fFid5MoNfCMlCcplSZQulUZUr-KeaJn7NhSEHNf4XSg7SG3_Ua5LRjoHkvsqbHl2jhlcPbUrxAnw7GUdKv7vuWu0ckj2W19fkwvEDQ8eF5EALvMw7PIB6B=w454-h308" width="454" /></a></div><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> <br /> <br /></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On Wednesday, Ukrainian forces intensified ongoing shelling of Donbass, lending apparent credibility to Biden's repeated claims over recent weeks that an invasion is "imminent." However, the news raises a number of questions about what we have been told by politicians and the mainstream western media since the beginning of the crisis. We need to take these claims into account in order to understand the significance of current events.</span></span><p></p><article align="left" class="wwscontent instapaper_body" style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br />Let's break down the propaganda to figure out how this increase in violence fits into the NATO narrative:</span><p></p><p><span style="background-color: white;">First, the US has given several reasons for why they expect Russia to invade over the last few weeks. That alone should give us pause, given the certainty with which the US has been making these claims. Since they have cited no evidence for most of them, you have to wonder why the secret "evidence" keeps changing. If you've been keeping track, they are, in order:<br /><br /></span></p><div id="YetAnotherAd"></div><p><span style="background-color: white;">- "Putin wants to restore the Empire." This has been repeated ad nauseum since the outbreak of the crisis, most recently by Blinken on Wednesday.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;">- Unsourced "evidence" indicated Russia will stage a false flag attack on Donbass as a pretext for invasion</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;">- Unsourced evidence indicated Russia will <em>fake</em> a false flag in Donbass, using staged video.</span></p><div id="RectangleAdLower"></div><p><span style="background-color: white;">- Officials stated that Russia will use its promise to protect Russian citizens and ethnic Russians in Donbass as a "pretext" for crossing the border.<br /><br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;">Of these, only the last is a plausible reason that Russia would trigger massive sanctions by invading. If there is any validity to the US doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. That's the pseudo-legal argument that was cited as the reason for violent US interventions in Libya and Syria in contravention of international law. If there is a time when it was justified, this would be it. More properly, it would be an example of using force to prevent genocide (see below for more on this).<br /><br />As the situation evolves, the propaganda gets more convoluted:<br /><br />- Thursday, it was reported that Russia was going to invade in respond to a Ukrainian attack on Donbass. By Friday, media were reporting it was <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/why-russia-wants-to-invade-ukraine/news-story/1a511d3da687013e58b217f0b101d6ad" target="" title="">unclear</a> who attacked first, even though it makes no sense to imagine that the residents of Donbass were trying to goad the Ukrainian military into attacking, as it was clearly prepared to do (again, more on this below).<br />- In responding to reports of the increased shelling, Biden stated that the attack on Donbass was a <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/why-russia-wants-to-invade-ukraine/news-story/1a511d3da687013e58b217f0b101d6ad" target="" title="">"false flag"</a> operation by Russia, claiming that Russia had fired the first shots in order to provoke a Ukrainian response that would create a "pretext" for an invasion. Interestingly, a reporter on the scene in the same televised report categorically stated that <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/why-russia-wants-to-invade-ukraine/news-story/1a511d3da687013e58b217f0b101d6ad" target="" title="">Russia had not fired</a> the first shots.<br />- A day later, <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17700604/ukraine-car-bomb-russia-attack/" target="" title="">explosions</a> rocked downtown Donetsk and Luhansk, the two principal cities of the breakaway Donbass region. At the time of this writing, I am awaiting the announcement that this was the long-awaited Russian false flag.<br /><br />It's worth noting that over time, more responsible news sources have begun <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-is-russia-threatening-to-invade-ukraine" target="" title="">explaining</a> the Russian security concerns detailed in their response to US demands to withdraw from their own border. At the same time, western media continued to describe these red lines only as "demands," as if Russia explaining its red lines in the face of US threats is unreasonable. Not surprisingly, US officials simply <a href="https://cnsnews.com/index.php/article/international/patrick-goodenough/russia-responds-agree-security-guarantees-or-well-be" target="" title="">dismissed</a> the most important of these arguments without acknowledging that they had any validity, while claiming to want to negotiate peace (on US terms, of course).<br /><br /></span></p><div id="BannerAd"></div><span style="background-color: white;">If one accepts that the only plausible reason for a Russian incursion was to protect Russian citizens and ethnic Russians in Ukraine, and that the US must have known, why did Biden suddenly predict before the shelling that it was going to happen within 24-48 hours, again with no evidence? It's reasonable to suspect that the US knew Ukraine was going to attack because it was behind it.</span><p></p><p><span style="background-color: white;">The US government had been trying to talk Ukraine's President Zelensky into escalating the conflict since last spring. Zelensky responded to Washington's lead with threats to residents of the breakaway Republics, but by January he lost his nerve and began to <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/volodymyr-zelensky-accuses-west-causing-202633967.html" target="" title="">openly dispute</a> US claims of "imminent" war that would serve no one's interest but that of the US weapons industry.<br /><br />The increase in shelling thus raises a very important point: Since Zelesnky had repeatedly denied that he believed Russia had any intent to invade, why would he suddenly provide a pretext? It's reasonable to suspect that he didn't. The more likely culprits are embedded <a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/06/the-durability-of-ukrainian-fascism/" target="" title="">pro-US fascists</a> in the army acting on their own. If that's the case, Zelensky can't deny ordering the attack if he values his life. We all saw how <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/10/burning-ukraines-protesters-alive/" target="" title="">violent</a> the <a href="https://www.nationofchange.org/2018/08/15/how-and-why-the-us-staged-a-coup-in-ukraine/" target="" title="">US-backed</a> Right Sector fascists were willing to get in over to overthrow the elected government and seize power in 2014. There is no reason to think that they would not do the same to Zelensky if he stood in the way of the plan.<br /><br />The brownshirts of Right Sector are now dispersed throughout the military, including their <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab7dw/azov-battalion-ukraine-far-right" target="" title="">Azov battalion</a>. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops have been massed on the borders of Donbass since before the Russian buildup (which might reasonably be assumed to be the original reason for Russia's massing its own troops on the border last spring). Since some of these neo-Nazis have openly called for genocide of ethnic Russians, it seems likely that they would be perfectly willing to provoke a conflict that will result in horrendous bloodshed, regardless of who "wins" the war in Donbass. Of course, if Russia doesn't take the bait, the US can still score propaganda points by saying that it prevented the invasion that would have otherwise occurred.<br /><br />In view of Friday's bombing, it appears that the US may have gotten tired of waiting for Russia to respond to the escalation in violence by the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and taken matters into their own hands, using <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-may-take-central-role-if-russia-invades-185258008.html" target="" title="">CIA-trained</a> Ukrainian special forces in place in Donbass.<br /><br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;">It will be interesting to see how Putin takes advantage of a situation which he surely anticipated, given the lack of imagination of the neocons who have clearly engineered the crisis.</span></p></article><p style="clear: both; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></p>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-45531544168529926592020-09-14T18:22:00.005-07:002020-09-14T18:22:56.799-07:00IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU<p><b><i><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br /><br /><br /> </span></i></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFw6gSk4qoF6SGk02-aTCAA2XmDqpTcW2vouUbjmGf7h0ZUMLhi3WSICw-rKwMCtJHZ_WreOGb_tLFqqzsQlXxFLxUoMBn4Xwv-IabTWWK_BeUkaPuXgz13BJT7dr9OOuoOfterNr_Fec/s483/bAKE+SALE+FOR+CANCER+TREATMENT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="483" data-original-width="363" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFw6gSk4qoF6SGk02-aTCAA2XmDqpTcW2vouUbjmGf7h0ZUMLhi3WSICw-rKwMCtJHZ_WreOGb_tLFqqzsQlXxFLxUoMBn4Xwv-IabTWWK_BeUkaPuXgz13BJT7dr9OOuoOfterNr_Fec/s320/bAKE+SALE+FOR+CANCER+TREATMENT.jpg" /></a></i></b></div><b><i><br /><br /><br /><br /></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As I've said many times, the easiest way to get through the corporate media blockade on a lot of issues is to write letters to the editor and guest columns for your local paper. Their editors are not as invested in denying a voice to those who would chip away at corporate control of government.<br /></span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />The following is an editorial I wrote for the Eugene Register-Guard a few years ago making the case for universal health care using an emotional hook. Research has shown this to be most likely to make people think about the issue who would ordinarily be predisposed to dismiss the idea out of hand as "socialist." I was recently reinded of the importance of this idea in a presentation on how to advocate for single payer. I reprint it here as an example of how to hook such people so that they will pay attention long enough to learn how such a system would benefit them, which is ususally the first thing most people think of when they consider public policy.<br /><br /></span></span></i></b><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">We’ve
all seen it: You walk into a convenience store and there on the counter, taped
to a jar, is the photo of a child. Scrawled on the picture is an appeal to
leave your change to finance a bone marrow transplant or some other treatment
the child’s family cannot afford. Or maybe you can help the victim of a fire or
accident by buying a pizza on the night that one dollar per sale goes to her
medical expenses.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Do you feel good about
being able to help, or are you outraged that these families have to beg for
desperately needed assistance?</span></span><p></p><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<br />
If you don’t feel guilty passing up such chances to help, perhaps it is because
you realize the ultimate futility of such appeals. But if you don’t support
doing something about it, you <i>should</i>
feel guilty. These are neighbors in need. We can turn away from them now, but
what happens when we need medical care we cannot afford? <br />
<br />
Chances are, you don’t have enough insurance to keep from going bankrupt if you
get an illness or injury requiring expensive treatment. 60% of bankruptcies are
due to medical bills, and 75% of those undergoing medical bankruptcy are
insured. In other words, simply having
insurance isn’t enough if you can’t afford to use it, or if you use it and go
broke anyway. Medical bankruptcies are
unheard of in other developed countries. There, risk sharing through universal
health care prevents the unlucky families who most need help from having
financial ruin added to their burden. Everyone contributes to the system so
that none need go without care when it is needed. <br />
<br />
Aside from the humanitarian issue of having nearly 30 million Americans
uninsured, most of whom are the working poor, there are many practical
advantages to universal health care. When access to care is not tied to
employment, it is much easier to change jobs. People are free to work where
they want instead of keeping a job with medical benefits that doesn’t otherwise
fit their needs. If they want to start their own business, they don’t have to
worry about losing it due to unexpected illness or injury. Businesses are more
competitive with overseas competitors when they do not have to pay extortionate
rates for insurance and instead, have predictable costs. These costs are significantly less in
countries with universal health care than they are in the American system of
access through for-profit medical insurance. <br />
<br />
The financial benefits of universal health care are well known, but since some
continue to claim that we cannot afford it in the US, it bears repeating: Other
countries provide universal, comprehensive care for as little as half the
amount per person that we pay in the US for care that is full of gaps even for
the insured. While it’s not estimated
that we will save that much under the plan recently introduced in Congress by
Bernie Sanders, his proposal for an improved system of Medicare for All would
provide comprehensive care to every American at less cost than the current
system. <br />
<br />
Such as system would have built-in cost controls lacking in the Affordable Care
Act. Without such constraints, the system will ultimately become unsustainable
due to the familiar “death spiral” of medical insurance: As costs rise, fewer can afford it, leading
to premium increases to maintain profits, which leads to fewer being able to
afford it, thus causing a new cycle of price increases. Ultimately, most of us
will not be able to afford insurance without the subsidies offered under
Obamacare. These subsidies amount to a bailout of Wall Street investors in the
insurance industry for the sole purpose of maintaining their profits. They add
nothing of value to the system to justify their siphoning 30 cents out of every
health care dollar, when Medicare overhead is less than a tenth of that.<br />
<br />
When you understand the economics of universal health care, it is hard to argue
that we cannot afford it. The question then becomes, do we really want to pay
more for less care for ourselves and our loved ones, just to deny it to those
we think may not be worthy?<br /></span>
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-27793707720232705802020-08-06T17:37:00.007-07:002023-01-02T16:11:46.556-08:00FIGHTING TRUTH DECAY IN THE NAME OF PEACE<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> <br /><br /> <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqQGu8riPs-jU8VyS6werSJGXmZZCg0ZF6XVjqL7MxxF9UzBGXXVD2cGYpwJ7PKoTQpDdojhZQ6kq2GeOHiFDsF7OkqzVnYK6pP5zy0s9kfc1Wmgt-EdY-w0OVCnmNWqiCfAY9Q4Rxsz8/s403/A+LIE+IS+A+LIE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px;"> <img border="0" data-original-height="398" data-original-width="403" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqQGu8riPs-jU8VyS6werSJGXmZZCg0ZF6XVjqL7MxxF9UzBGXXVD2cGYpwJ7PKoTQpDdojhZQ6kq2GeOHiFDsF7OkqzVnYK6pP5zy0s9kfc1Wmgt-EdY-w0OVCnmNWqiCfAY9Q4Rxsz8/s0/A+LIE+IS+A+LIE.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br /><b><i> “Truth
is the first casualty of war.”</i></b><br />
-Aeschylus<br />
<b><i><br />
“After that,
it’s mostly civilians.”</i></b><br />
-Source
unknown.<br />
<br />
As Chomsky and Herman <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent">wrote</a>,
starting a war requires manufacturing the consent of the public. Fortunately,
though opposition to war has become barely audible in the last
50 years amidst the clamor of warmongers’ alarms about imagined threats to the
Empire, it persists. There is an urgent need to use the limited strength of the
peace movement to rally public support to the cause of ending war. Whatever
tactics we might use, our first goal must be to awaken Americans to the fact
that nearly everything they are told by the mainstream media about US foreign
policy is false. <br />
<br />
Only when Americans recognize that the corporate media is captive to war
profiteers will they understand that war is not inevitable, that it <a href="https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2020/no-warming-no-war/">threatens
human survival because it enslaves us to fossil fuels</a>, that silence is consent
to continue on the path to self-destruction and that without that consent, the
Empire cannot continue to wage endless war against the mass of humanity.<br />
<br />
Awakening the public to these truths requires a strategy to enable them to see beyond
the blinders of their belief in American exceptionalism. This idea is so deeply
ingrained that even many antiwar activists do not recognize it in themselves.
It is the belief that the United States is essentially good and that our
tendency to war is due to our desire to do the right thing regardless of how
consistently we do not accomplish our stated objectives. The idea that <a href="https://allthatsinteresting.com/gulf-of-tonkin">the Vietnam War was a
mistake</a>, that the lies that led us into invading Iraq were an aberration, or
that <a href="https://sipa.columbia.edu/news/former-msf-president-questions-notion-humanitarian-wars">humanitarian
intervention is a noble endeavor</a> are all examples of how the insidious belief
in American Exceptionalism can blind us to the fact that excuses for war are
always (or almost always) based on propaganda.<br />
<br />
I don’t know what students are learning in high school these days, but when I
was a sophomore I learned how the Hearst newspaper chain created support for
war with Spain by calling for a “humanitarian intervention” to help Cuba
liberate itself from imperial rule. The result of course was that Cuba, the
Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam essentially became colonies of
the US. In more recent times, the Vietnam was justified as “self-defense” based
on <a href="https://allthatsinteresting.com/gulf-of-tonkin">lies about the Gulf
of Tonkin incident</a>, Iraq was invaded for a second time on manufactured
evidence for the false claim that it was building WMDs and Libya was destroyed
based on an unverified claim that Gaddafi was preparing to massacre US-backed “rebels”
in Benghazi. There are similar stories to tell about essentially every American
intervention since WWII (not to mention WWI itself), for those who want to take
the time to explore the history of modern wars.<br />
<br />
Given these well-known examples of the US government lying to its people, you
might think it would be easy to make the case that they are being lied to about
<a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2013/02/we-are-all-syrians-now.html">Syria</a>,
<a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2014/03/ukraine-in-perspective.html">Ukraine</a>,
<a href="https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/22/israel-nuclear-archives-iaea-iran/">Iran</a>,
<a href="https://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuela-propaganda-blitz-to-justify-intervention-tyrants-dont-have-free-elections/5667763">Venezuela</a>,
<a href="https://thegrayzone.com/2020/04/19/media-fake-news-nicaragua-ortega-dead-speech/">Nicaragua</a>,
<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/russophobia-in-the-new-cold-war/">Russia</a>
and other nations whose governments have been targeted for imperial expansion. If
so, you do not appreciate the degree to which Americans have been induced to
unconsciously accept the premises of American Exceptionalism through education,
media, and politicians. The only way to break through this wall of denial is to
educate the public about exactly how this is accomplished. How else will they
learn to critically examine the lies they are being told by virtually everyone
in the Western media, politicians, and the Wall Street war profiteers whose
interests they serve? <br />
<br />
It is hard for most people to accept the idea that the corporate media lies
about nearly every aspect of foreign policy. It sounds to the uninitiated like
a conspiracy theory, which <a href="https://www.globalresearch.ca/conspiracy-theory-foundations-of-a-weaponized-term/5319708">they
have been taught to disregard</a> (<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jfk-and-the-unspeakable_b_243924?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKhE-kFmex5CBMEHL__eUAcVVd9rEw7obRvviJpCmAfCFOWKRo-k_5nEJ8DNRhNMvQApa3ifqNZmTcLWy_15V2dgoo-U9QJWC8saPkKaajRrpdcklg3DorAGOONhpKYmYRzbgomAW0muYueygs2C6v0_nbGyo8qZkmbUL8Pe4keI">unless
it comes from the government</a>). In order to understand how it is possible to
get all of the mainstream media to repeat the same false story, you have to
understand the ways in which it can be manipulated through both economic
pressure (as detailed in the <a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2014/03/the-art-and-science-of-propaganda.html">introduction
to <i>Manufacturing Consent</i></a>) and the influence of propagandists in the CIA,
their assets in the media and private think tanks. It is the extensive
influence of the CIA on corporate media that is the hardest to accept for
people who have not done the research, but for those willing to read a little
further, I wrote this <a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2014/03/the-art-and-science-of-propaganda.html">short
essay</a> to make it easy to understand the main points.<br />
<br />
Since 1983, the CIA’s propaganda function has been largely replaced by corporate
think tanks, the US Agency for International Development (<a href="https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/23/usaid-venezuela-regime-change-trump/">USAID</a>)
and its spinoff, the self-proclaimed “private nonprofit” National Endowment for
Democracy (<a href="https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-08-27/Why-is-the-NED-fueling-the-Hong-Kong-protests--JtMb2yKKWc/index.html">NED</a>),
which is in fact almost entirely funded by Congress. They use the same
techniques of using government funding to influence both US and foreign media
to tell the same stories whose scripts the US foreign policy establishment has
written. Their function is to weaken governments targeted for regime change,
whether through war, insurrection, US-backed terrorist invasions or crippling sanctions.
<br />
<br />
This is of course only a bare-bones summary of the way that the media is manipulated
and why it is important to challenge the official narrative. I hope that I have
made the case that it is critical to get people to understand the extent to which
they are deceived by their government. Interested readers are encouraged to
read the linked articles and to do their own research. The importance to the
peace movement of freeing Americans trapped in the prison of their false belief
systems cannot be overemphasized. Please join the effort by learning more and joining
the fight to free America from the Matrix of lies in which most of us exist.</span>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-23341856485877159342020-02-11T11:43:00.000-08:002020-02-11T11:43:40.974-08:00WILL DEMOCRATS FALL FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION SCAM AGAIN?<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /><br /><br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6wo_op7U6Z6BRSMVyUmqdUwK9wJqmN_g31EC-s91iShqJ35gSLF796PrvTHy0sUV9bhRsr3s8MaA4YImg0_uCMByhqInV-klaEb7ytWVBm_bpaafDBQEr0QK4wIg525IUQYAgA6eqjck/s1600/Health+care+not+warfare.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6wo_op7U6Z6BRSMVyUmqdUwK9wJqmN_g31EC-s91iShqJ35gSLF796PrvTHy0sUV9bhRsr3s8MaA4YImg0_uCMByhqInV-klaEb7ytWVBm_bpaafDBQEr0QK4wIg525IUQYAgA6eqjck/s1600/Health+care+not+warfare.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /><br /><br />When
all the Establishment-backed contenders for the Democratic presidential
nomination support some version of a public option, it’s a safe bet that corporate
interests that finance the DNC are the ones that are being served. As corporatist
candidates like Harris and Biden fail to resonate, new champions of “pragmatic”
approaches to reform rise to take their places. Even progressive darling
Elizabeth Warren favors an incremental approach that she thinks will lead to
single payer, starting with a public option. Only Sanders has consistently
indicated his willingness to take the lead in a fight for a Medicare for All
now.<br />
<br />
The arguments made by the corporatists in the party are having an effect. A
substantial proportion of Democrats are buying the false claim that a public
option is the only viable way to establish universal access to health care. That’s
shown in their <a href="https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-october-2019/">growing
support for a public option and decreasing support for a single payer system
like Medicare for All</a>. It’s
disheartening that so many supporters of a single payer system of health care are
falling for the same nonsensical arguments that were used to undermine support for
it during the “health care reform” debate in 2009. <br />
<br />
Those of us who understood then that the call for a public option was a <a href="https://takebackamericaforthepeople.blogspot.com/2009/11/chapter-one-why-democracy-for-america.html">bait-and-switch</a>
strategy to defuse the growing movement for a single payer system must start
all over again educating progressives about <a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2013/01/its-time-for-real-debate-on-health-care.html">why
it will not lead to single payer.</a> Instead, it will just add one more plan
to a multipayer system of access to health care that is <a href="https://sum.cuny.edu/united-states-health-care-cost-canada-administrative/">inherently
inefficient</a>. This inefficiency is the main reason that health care costs
per capita in the US are about twice the average in countries with universal
health care. Americans will not accept another expensive half-measure that won’t
address the root problem or assure access to all.<br />
<br />
The reason a public option won’t lead to single payer is that a Congress saturated
by lobbyist cash will never create a plan that would compete with private plans.
Democrats who are ready to embrace Biden, Buttigieg or any other proponent of a
public option have apparently forgotten that <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2009/06/08/739946/-I-Don-t-Support-Schumer-s-Public-Option-Compromise">Senator
Schumer explicitly stated</a> in 2009 that Democrats had no intention of
creating such a plan. They also fail to recall that the corporate Democrats who
kept single payer off the negotiating table continued to claim that people
would like the plan so much that Americans would eventually all want to join it,
creating a single payer plan by default. Nothing has changed since then. <br />
<br />
To be fair, it’s theoretically possible that a public option could at least
provide universal coverage. However, that’s not the same as universal access to
health care. Anyone who has studied the issue understands that premiums, copays
and deductibles remain a significant barrier to access to care for the insured.
Financial barriers to access have dramatically increased since 1998, according
to a recent <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/27/medicare-all-what-patients-need-new-harvard-study-shows-even-those-private-insurance">Harvard
study</a> published in the Journal of the AMA. That study also showed that even
the much-touted Obamacare expansion, expensive as it was, has not appreciably decreased
the proportion of people who experience problems with access to affordable care.
That’s why <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/10/stunning-indictment-us-health-care-system-one-chart/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9fHh5AvDY8kj0nyowkVZgm8X6QFkAu7Ei3x8xyO1RNsrLZ628HQCLkoE8ZUVQMwKab4fSbJl6ZRnXiRH7irl66Oxj95Q&_hsmi=80620419&utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20Daily%20Health%20Policy%20Report&utm_content=80620419&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email">one
in four Americans report that they or a family member have put off needed care
for a serious condition</a> because of cost. In families earning less than $40,000
per year, that figure rises to one in three.<br />
<br />Insurance is not the same as access to care <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/10/stunning-indictment-us-health-care-system-one-chart/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9fHh5AvDY8kj0nyowkVZgm8X6QFkAu7Ei3x8xyO1RNsrLZ628HQCLkoE8ZUVQMwKab4fSbJl6ZRnXiRH7irl66Oxj95Q&_hsmi=80620419&utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20Daily%20Health%20Policy%20Report&utm_content=80620419&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email">when
financial barriers to using it persist</a>. That even applies to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/12/income-hit-to-many-medicare-beneficiaries-from-premiums-health-costs.html">patients
on Medicare</a>, who also often have serious <a href="https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/disabled-medicare-patients-cant-afford-medications-visit-ed-more-often">difficulty
paying for their medications.</a> That’s why single payer advocates generally
prefer the term “Improved Medicare for
All” when referring to the plans advocated by most advocacy groups and members
of Congress who actually understand these issues and support a single payer
solution to the continuing crisis in health care access and affordability.<br />
<br />
Improved Medicare for All refers to a system that is more comprehensive than
Medicare, with coverage for vision, dental and hearing and medications, no or
minimal premiums or copays and no deductibles. Some versions include long term
care, <a href="https://howardgleckman.com/2010/02/21/how_other_countries_pay_for_lo/">as
is provided in several European countries such as France and the Netherlands</a>. It is also a feature of one of the bills
currently in Congress. All such bills introduced in the last few Congresses are
variations on Improved Medicare for All because that is the type of single payer
system that is widely acknowledged to be the most politically palatable in the
US due to the generally positive views of Medicare.<br />
<br />
I won’t go into the explanations of why single payer systems are less expensive
than publicly funded and administered (single payer) systems (the basic reasons
are summarized in this <a href="https://takebackamericaforthepeople.blogspot.com/2009/08/appendix-i-economic-case-for-single.html">bullet-point
document</a>, which also points out other economic advantages). There are
endless articles written on the subject for the interested reader, but the
simple response to those who say we can’t afford such a system is this:
countries that provide universal health care to all their residents using a
publicly funded and administered system provide care as good or better than the
US at the least cost. <br />
<br />
If other countries can do it, the only thing stopping the US from doing the
same is the lack of political will due to Americans dithering about whether it
is politically possible. It will be possible only when we demand it. A single
payer plan like Medicare for All is the only affordable way to end the crisis
of health care access and affordability in the US. Accept no substituteRick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-26579505519308856602017-11-20T12:30:00.003-08:002017-11-20T12:59:17.809-08:00MEDICARE FOR ALL-HARD HEADED ECONOMICS, SOFT HEARTED POLICY<span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /><br /> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvkiUCY-x7i7mYsBAONrG1rbZzHFrHLR_NdJttpvzKH3jHQLCt8qKf-jACIwVPnedF5lbMW7jQWrdCD060rWuYDQoM15O5bzXx1keJxC2hwkE6O3WpjHM_ALeSPNlEywlUs1VOeYSTeJg/s1600/MFA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="font-size: 11pt; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="682" data-original-width="1024" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvkiUCY-x7i7mYsBAONrG1rbZzHFrHLR_NdJttpvzKH3jHQLCt8qKf-jACIwVPnedF5lbMW7jQWrdCD060rWuYDQoM15O5bzXx1keJxC2hwkE6O3WpjHM_ALeSPNlEywlUs1VOeYSTeJg/s320/MFA.jpg" width="320" /></a><br /><br /><br />We’ve
all seen it: You walk into a convenience store and there on the counter, taped to a jar, is the
photo of a child. Scrawled on the picture is an appeal to
leave your change to finance a bone marrow transplant or some other treatment
the child’s family cannot afford. Or maybe you can help <span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">the victim of a fire or accident</span> by buying a pizza
on the night that one dollar per sale goes to her medical expenses. Do you
feel good about being able to help, or are you outraged that these families
have to beg for desperately needed assistance?<br />
<br />
If you don’t feel guilty passing up such chances to help, perhaps it is because
you realize the ultimate futility of such appeals. But if you don’t support
doing something about it, you <i>should</i>
feel guilty. These are neighbors in need. We can turn away from them now, but
what happens when we need medical care we cannot afford? <br />
<br />
Chances are, you don’t have enough insurance to keep from going bankrupt if you
get an illness or injury requiring expensive treatment. 60% of bankruptcies are
due to medical bills, and 75% of those undergoing medical bankruptcy are
insured. In other words, simply having
insurance isn’t enough if you can’t afford to use it, or if you use it and go
broke anyway. Medical bankruptcies are
unheard of in other developed countries. There, risk sharing through universal
health care prevents the unlucky families who most need help from having
financial ruin added to their burden. Everyone contributes to the system so
that none need go without care when it is needed. <br />
<br />
Aside from the humanitarian issue of having nearly 30 million Americans
uninsured, most of whom are the working poor, there are many practical
advantages to universal health care. When access to care is not tied to
employment, it is much easier to change jobs. People are free to work where
they want instead of keeping a job with medical benefits that doesn’t otherwise
fit their needs. If they want to start their own business, they don’t have to
worry about losing it due to unexpected illness or injury. Businesses are more
competitive with overseas competitors when they do not have to pay extortionate
rates for insurance and instead, have predictable costs. These costs are significantly less in
countries with universal health care than they are in the American system of
access through for-profit medical insurance. <br />
<br />
The financial benefits of universal health care are well known, but since some continue
to claim that we cannot afford it in the US, it bears repeating: Other
countries provide universal, comprehensive care for as little as half the
amount per person that we pay in the US for care that is full of gaps even for
the insured. While it’s not estimated
that we will save that much under the plan recently introduced in Congress by
Bernie Sanders, his proposal for an improved system of Medicare for All would
provide comprehensive care to every American at less cost than the current
system. <br />
<br />
Such as system would have built-in cost controls lacking in the Affordable Care
Act. Without such constraints, the system will ultimately become unsustainable
due to the familiar “death spiral” of medical insurance: As costs rise, fewer can afford it, leading
to premium increases to maintain profits, which leads to fewer being able to
afford it, thus causing a new cycle of price increases. Ultimately, most of us
will not be able to afford insurance without the subsidies offered under
Obamacare. These subsidies amount to a bailout of Wall Street investors in the
insurance industry for the sole purpose of maintaining their profits. They add
nothing of value to the system to justify their siphoning 30 cents out of every
health care dollar, when Medicare overhead is less than a tenth of that.<br />
<br />
When you understand the economics of universal health care, it is hard to argue
that we cannot afford it. The question then becomes, do we really want to pay
more for less care for ourselves and our loved ones, just to deny it to those
we think may not be worthy?<br />
<br /><br /><br /><b><i><a href="http://www.nrtoday.com/opinion/learn-the-economics-of-universal-health-care/article_aab70641-7447-5274-ba0f-b35b786f7ee7.html">This article first appeared in the News-Review</a> (Roseburg, OR) on November 17, 2017.</i></b></span>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-17171650446904946982017-07-13T15:38:00.000-07:002017-07-13T15:39:13.646-07:00ALL WE NEED IS LOVE<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /><br /><br /> </span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDhfMU8Tk1BcUVhpH43SWAvrEzsYIuZ8qkd8VYu7NwbtiZjULL9_iOrcG_8UcQUqNwbAJjmelcdAzeWT1ZjE50uBcKYFa6RtzLVyVZUSWLlBy96JWfvxeQFk3_7xoyb63dZUQ7GXY5F4Q/s1600/civil+war.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="font-size: 14pt; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="181" data-original-width="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDhfMU8Tk1BcUVhpH43SWAvrEzsYIuZ8qkd8VYu7NwbtiZjULL9_iOrcG_8UcQUqNwbAJjmelcdAzeWT1ZjE50uBcKYFa6RtzLVyVZUSWLlBy96JWfvxeQFk3_7xoyb63dZUQ7GXY5F4Q/s1600/civil+war.jpg" /></a><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;"><i><b>When I was asked to speak to my local Unitarian Universalist congregation on a topic of my choosing, I opted to speak about how we are morally obligated to resist injustice in general and war in particular. Since t</b></i></span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><i><b>his blogsite is a political one, it may seem inappropriate to some that I am choosing to publish a sermon here, but I do not apologize. Anyone who objects to the invocation of a higher power in the universe is welcome to skip past such references here, but the message is otherwise universal and entirely consistent with the stated aims of Soldiers For Peace International. I hope that it will provide some thought for those who battle for justice out of anger, and who forget that anger is but a response to the pain we feel when we see the powerful prey on the meek.</b></i><br /><br /><br />In his first inaugural address, with the nation on
the brink of civil war, Lincoln called on the nation to remember that
regardless of our differences, we are all bound by common ideals. Pointing out
that we had a choice to resolve our differences peacefully, he concluded with
an appeal to listen to “the better angels of our nature.” That’s a beautiful metaphor, but what does it
imply? <br />
<br />
I believe it refers to the fact that Man has two natures that are often in
conflict: spiritual and animal. When we decide to act in a situation with moral
implications, we always face a choice between satisfying our physical and
psychological desires or acting according to the greater good. Lincoln was
pointing out that the coming war was not inevitable. War is always a choice.<br />
<br />
In deciding on our actions, most of us try to balance the two types of
motivation, animal and spiritual. We want to serve our own interests, but not
at the expense of doing harm. But how deeply do we consider the effects of our
actions and just as importantly, our decisions not to act? We can’t all be
saints, but I believe if our needs are met it is a moral imperative that we do
what we can to align with our spiritual side. That requires consistent effort.
While accepting our limitations, we must constantly strive to improve. We are
all creatures of habit, but the absence of change is death. Therefore, we must
make it a habit to question our actions as a means of growth.<br />
<br />
This starts with questioning our motivations. The difference between the two
forms of motivation, spiritual and animal, is not always clear. Rationalization
is powerful and universal. For example, we may strongly believe that character
is built by being self-reliant. Does this mean that caring for others actually
harms them? Some say yes. Are they just justifying their desire to avoid paying
taxes to provide a social safety net? After all, most would feel differently if
someone close to them is afflicted. Until the question affects them personally,
such people suppress their innate compassion. I believe that this community
supports the right of each of us to health care, but how many of us are
standing up for the innocent victims of war. What interest does turning away
serve? <br />
<br />
Rationalization is an unconscious process, so how do we decide what our
motivation is and whose interest our actions or inaction serves? The key is to
honestly consider where our self-interest lies, and put it aside when it
conflicts with what is best for all. Perhaps we avoid confronting the evil of war
because its horror is too overwhelming. That would serve to ease our anxiety
and avoid a sense of helplessness, but at the cost of our spiritual well-being.<br />
<br />
Animal nature is not inherently bad. It
enables us to survive as individuals in hostile physical environments. However,
it is our spiritual side that connects us to the wider universe, including that
which is not seen. God, however we choose to define it, is within us as well as
outside of us. I believe that though we often forget it, love is what connects
us to each other and to the wider universe. We can call this universal,
all-pervasive love the Holy Spirit. <br />
<br />
Love is not physical, yet nothing is more powerful. Love is the one thing that
could exist without its opposite, which is not hate but apathy. Unlike
darkness, which cannot exist without light, universal love fills the emptiness
of space. I believe that this is because it emanates from the Source of all
creation. It is our substance, in the most elemental sense. We cannot ever separate ourselves from that
Source or from each other, though we can become insensible of the connection.
That is what apathy is, willful blindness to our innate compassion. <br />
<br />
Our beliefs do not define us. Our actions do. What we think we believe is
self-identity, but it is what we do establishes the identity that others see.
When our actions follow our beliefs, we are said to have integrity. If we never
examine our beliefs, we do not see inconsistency between our various beliefs or
between our beliefs and our actions. But we cannot honestly say we believe in
something if we are acting contrary to that belief. For example, “Christians”
who claim that life is sacred but support the death penalty clearly do not
believe what they profess.<br />
<br />
We choose what we want to believe, often without thinking. In a very real
sense, we construct our own reality. That is why we have become divided by our
belief systems. We must strive to remember that in truth, we are one even with
those who seem to have nothing in common with us. We should try to persuade
others in a loving manner, not in one that promotes anger and conflict. Our goal should be to create a common reality
that is true to the loving nature of our spiritual selves.<br />
<br />
So, if we want to become more the person we want to be, we have to make
decisions by looking at all choices, understanding our motivations, and
deciding to act according to the beliefs we wish to define us, such as thinking
that we are empathetic, engaged and altruistic. <br />
<br />
We cannot allow superficial beliefs to guide us, if they conflict with our core
beliefs. For example, many of us believe that capitalism is literally God’s
gift to Man. That’s fine as far as it goes, but if we allow that belief to
justify acting in ways that do not reflect our spiritual beliefs, we have to
challenge those inconsistent beliefs. Again, only when we develop a coherent
system of spiritual beliefs and allow them to determine our actions can we
become the persons we want truly want to be. <br />
<br />
If we consider ourselves spiritual and virtuous, how do our actions show it?
Are individual acts of kindness enough? If so, then what of the suffering of
those who are victims of the powerful? The working poor in America have no access to
affordable health care. Innocent civilians in targeted nations in the Mideast
and throughout the world are victims of US aggression cloaked as “humanitarian”
intervention in the name of liberty and security. These problems and many
others are not unconnected. They result from moral choices that we make as
individuals and as a society. As Franklin pointed out, if you sacrifice liberty
for security, you will have neither. If we believe in the principle of
self-rule, we have a duty to demand that our government serve the cause of
liberty and justice for all.<br />
<br />
We fought a war that was ultimately about ending the institution of legal
slavery. Now we face the task of stopping our government from enslaving the
human race through war and economic coercion. We are all paying the price for
allowing our government to serve the selfish interests of the powerful. Whether
we are victims of austerity measures at home or of endless war abroad; whether
we are suffering from compassion overload or have become numb to our innate
compassion, none of us are spared. <br />
<br />
Those of us who are comfortable have a duty to those who are not, both poor
Americans and victims of US aggression around the world. Doing nothing is a
choice, but those who make this choice should not try to excuse it by saying
that they cannot make a difference. It is only their efforts that can. Good
intentions are not enough. We cannot honestly call ourselves spiritual if we do
not face the evil that our government is perpetrating in the name of “freedom”
and “security” and demand justice. Standing
up for what is right often takes courage and sometimes requires sacrifice, but
the only hope for humanity in these dark times is for those of us who
understand that we are all part of an interdependent web of existence, bound
inextricably together only as strongly as our love for each other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-60266196267792190972016-09-02T13:10:00.000-07:002016-10-04T12:53:24.104-07:00THE REAL REASON SINGLE PAYER IS INEVITABLE<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /><br /><br /> <br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf5KGPY75nHuEcIY6etlqHCsYDNlomgEYyfj3RRYFqgrfBhwdRgnNy-SEvZynNhllsFrcnQeHZl0Ay1H8eFc3cEqH10XhD3LNAlq3zFcNBYNYNV52Zm0o79yemfabD38aqMGZmJ7Mbu1I/s1600/is-obamacare-worth-it.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf5KGPY75nHuEcIY6etlqHCsYDNlomgEYyfj3RRYFqgrfBhwdRgnNy-SEvZynNhllsFrcnQeHZl0Ay1H8eFc3cEqH10XhD3LNAlq3zFcNBYNYNV52Zm0o79yemfabD38aqMGZmJ7Mbu1I/s320/is-obamacare-worth-it.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /><br /> <br />A
recent <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e34b36fe1d8b4a70bbaf9ee517b04d1a/clinton-could-face-mounting-problem-health-overhaul">Associated
Press article</a> by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar outlined a number of problems with
the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that “are leading some to wonder whether “Obamacare”
will go down as a failed experiment.” Paradoxically, news that Obamacare is in
crisis should be encouraging for anyone who understands the economics of health
care. Until people heavily invested in
defending it against unfair attacks see that it won’t work, they won’t understand
the need to demand a health care system that will.<br />
<br />
While it’s a shame that the number of uninsured will rise before the problem
can be fixed, that is the inevitable cost of dismissing the only real solution
to rising health care costs and decreasing access: a single payer system. <a href="http://www.nationofchange.org/2016/08/23/single-payer-healthcare-system-inevitable/">Robert
Reich recently argued this</a>, but he missed the main point. He was right that
Obamacare has led to decreased competition as insurance companies consolidated
and took over state markets, but this is not what will kill it. The real reason was evident before the debate
on health insurance reform began. It’s called the “death spiral” of health care
costs.<br />
<br />
The death spiral is simple to explain. The more health care costs rise, the
fewer people can afford it. This leads insurers to increase premiums and
deductibles in order to maintain profits, leading in turn to fewer people
buying insurance, and the cycle repeats. A <a href="http://www.graham-center.org/rgc/publications-reports/publications/one-pagers/health-insurance-2005.html">2005
study</a> published in <i>American Family
Physician</i> projected that the average individual would pay 100% of her
income for health care at then-current rates of inflation! This trend started before
Obamacare. It was built into the system. It is the reason 45 million Americans
were underinsured in 2008. <i>It was the
inescapable consequence of a system of private insurance. <br />
</i><br />
Of course, no one will pay all of their income for medical insurance. Very few
would pay half of that. However, that’s exactly what the AFP study predicted that
would have been the average cost in 2015. That hasn’t happened, but it isn’t
because Obamacare has decreased the rate of health care cost inflation. The
relative stability of health care costs over the last few years started before
ACA’s main provisions took effect, and <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/21/Get-Ready-Huge-Obamacare-Premium-Hikes-2017">the
rate of inflation has picked up again</a>, worse than before. <br />
<br />
ACA manages to mask some of the astronomical cost of medical insurance by
providing billions of tax dollars to prevent large premium subsidies for a
significant segment of the market. According
to the AP article cited above, over 80% of Healthcare.gov customers get
subsidies of about 70% of their premiums. That’s tax money going straight into
private pockets for a “service” that adds nothing of value to the provision of
health care. Obamacare was, more than anything else, a bailout of a failing Wall-Street
owned medical insurance industry. The question is, at what point are Americans
going to catch on and realize that pouring all that money into the system just
to maintain shareholder profits is a fool’s game?<br />
<br />
Obamacare only delays the day of reckoning for a system that is pricing itself
out of existence. If the ACA had not
passed, it would be on the verge of collapse now. As it is, insurers are
dropping out of exchanges due to unanticipated costs of meeting the standards
of ACA that are hurting the bottom line, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html">despite
large rate increases as the major provisions of Obamacare kicked in.</a> Rates
for individual insurance outside the plan continue to rise by double digits. It’s
so bad that <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e34b36fe1d8b4a70bbaf9ee517b04d1a/clinton-could-face-mounting-problem-health-overhaul">the
largest provider in Tennessee is requesting increases averaging 62%.</a> In
part because of uncontrolled costs, the ACA has also left 29 million uninsured.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, that number is not expected to
change much even if states currently resisting Medicaid expansion join the
program. <br />
<br />
There are <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/SlowMedicine/59887">many
other major problems</a> with Obamacare, almost all of which arise from the
fact that it is insurance-based. For instance, subsidies still leave a 40 year
old man earning $25,000 per year liable for up to $5000 in copays and
deductibles. Such costs deter many from seeking needed care. Those trying to minimize premiums, especially
young, healthy adults, often opt for high-deductible plans that could leave
them responsible for the first $10,000 in bills and a share of anything over
that. In case of catastrophic illness or injury, almost anyone can end up
bankrupt. Medical expenses are estimated to be the cause of 60% of
bankruptcies. Single payer health insurance thus amounts to bankruptcy
insurance as well. That is just one of <a href="http://takebackamericaforthepeople.blogspot.com/2009/08/appendix-i-economic-case-for-single.html">many
benefits of such systems</a>, in addition to the fact that they can provide
universal health care at a fraction of the cost of our current non-system.<br />
<br />
It’s time to face the facts. Obamacare may have been the best that Democrats
could produce, but it is not even close to a solution to the problem of rising costs
and declining access to health care. There is no excuse for claiming that
single payer is not possible, <a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2016/02/the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-to-defeat.html">as Clinton has</a>. To say this is an admission that
it is impossible to address the corrupting influence of money in politics. That
is not acceptable in a nation that claims to be a democracy. The vast majority
of Democrats favor single payer. It’s time they stand up and demand it. Waiting
until a Congress awash in Wall Street money to do it on its own is never going
to work. We can wait for the system to collapse of its own dead weight, or we
can work to make our members of Congress force a real debate on health care
reform.</span>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-73025848587602778342016-08-27T16:01:00.001-07:002016-08-27T16:16:46.880-07:00THE ROAD TO WWIII IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /><br /><br /><br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA1N76VvZtsIsFCdlDhbSDzVP3otBszNAmo3KOeuwz2C2cFoAG9RazI2QWzI2xUrSJpTUbMZz8fMyqG7ywHiS7E3lF4oBlG5NhJB-WHTyDjpuq7k4c3KVPU_HvWPN1vpCezWyIs7VpueQ/s1600/Democracy+on+fire.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA1N76VvZtsIsFCdlDhbSDzVP3otBszNAmo3KOeuwz2C2cFoAG9RazI2QWzI2xUrSJpTUbMZz8fMyqG7ywHiS7E3lF4oBlG5NhJB-WHTyDjpuq7k4c3KVPU_HvWPN1vpCezWyIs7VpueQ/s320/Democracy+on+fire.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
While
Americans are justly concerned about the ongoing humanitarian disaster in
Syria, they must be careful whose narrative they accept before deciding what we
should do about it. Both sides have been responsible for civilian deaths and
torture, but we are only being told one side of the story, and a distorted one at
that. Though readily apparent to anyone who wants to look at the facts, the
American role in the violence is never clearly spelled out. For instance, famous "humanitarian" Nicholas Kristof has been on the bandwagon arguing for US military
intervention. It’s only right that the plight of Syrians he is highlighting
should be put in proper perspective. <br />
<br />
In his<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-today-is-a-syrian-girl.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fnicholas-kristof&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0"> latest article</a>, Kristof makes an emotionally powerful appeal for Obama to take in Syrian refugees. However,
in doing so he compares the violence in Syria with the Nazi attempt to conquer the Western
world. The truth is that the Syrian conflict, though often called a “civil war,” is actually a
case of a sovereign nation defending itself against an invasion of foreign
terrorists sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia and their allies. <br />
<br />
The US government claims the right to topple the government of Syria for its
own purposes, regardless of the effect on the civilian population. The claim of
“humanitarian intervention” is unjustified either by the facts or international
law. The effort is being led by a known al Qaeda affiliate, a fact not well concealed
by claims about a mythical “moderate rebel” faction. It makes no sense to blame
the resulting carnage on a government that is defending its sovereignty against
a ruthless and brutal enemy. <br />
<br />
Kristof’s implied comparison of Assad to Hitler might be written off as a bad
analogy, except that, almost as an afterthought, he chides Obama for not doing “more
to end the slaughter.” Since taking in more refugees would do nothing to ease
the conflict, he must be referring to his previous arguments for a no-fly zone (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/opinion/but-what-if-my-dog-had-been-a-syrian.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fnicholas-kristof&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection">here</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/opinion/obamas-worst-mistake.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fnicholas-kristof&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=collection">here</a>). <br />
<br />
“Establishing a no-fly zone” means attacking the Syrian military. That’s an act
of war. Since neither we nor any NATO ally has been attacked by Syria, it would
constitute another illegal war of aggression, much like Iraq. Vietnam might be
a better comparison, since both involve baiting the targeted country, as the US
did in the Gulf of Tonkin. There, as in Iraq, we went to war based on lies. Or
perhaps Libya is the closest comparison, since the NATO attack on the Libyan
people and government forces started with a no-fly zone. Although that war used
the legal fig leaf of a UN resolution, a Syrian no-fly zone would not. Having
been fooled into supporting one illegal NATO war, Russia and China will not
support such a resolution again. If NATO
acts unilaterally, it will be even more blatantly illegal than the attack on
Libya. The results would be at least as disastrous.<br />
<br />
A major difference between Vietnam and Syria is that Russia has combat troops
in Syria. An attack could be construed as an attack against Russia, which is
legally in the country at the request of the Syrian government. The US recently
threatened to do just that when the Syrian Army bombed separatist Kurdish
forces, with which US Special Forces were illegally embedded. <br />
<br />
Clinton and other neocons seem unconcerned with the possibility of sparking a
war with a nuclear-armed power. They are calling for a no-fly zone or even more
aggressive actions. Trump would be under intense pressure to abandon his
no-regime-change position and do the same. No one in the foreign policy
establishment appears willing or able to question the groupthink under which it
is operating. <br />
<br />
Few in Congress seem to understand that most of the official statements coming
from the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence
community reflect a distorted, one-sided view of the conflict that ignores the
facts, international law and common sense. It’s our job to educate them and
demand that the government attack the real roots of the terror in Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Israel and Washington itself.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]-->Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-70295021806570707802016-07-15T21:21:00.000-07:002018-05-06T16:51:51.637-07:00THE WAR COMES HOME IN DALLAS<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFK4z9dWgkCzY_b53GO7rQxceueC1bh0MasDakrb2sRtUh61pxQhyphenhyphenJzyIJascPKTmbfH0Z-vn6qh05zDUVkWOAgDwi-GsBMevOGImwDn4mGc4HUzhObLJoX1B57lQcyQFF9Wap5LiAzUE/s1600/Newsweek+police+state+cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFK4z9dWgkCzY_b53GO7rQxceueC1bh0MasDakrb2sRtUh61pxQhyphenhyphenJzyIJascPKTmbfH0Z-vn6qh05zDUVkWOAgDwi-GsBMevOGImwDn4mGc4HUzhObLJoX1B57lQcyQFF9Wap5LiAzUE/s1600/Newsweek+police+state+cover.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">
<br /><br /> </span><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">In the endless discussion about the murder of five Dallas law enforcement officers, the most basic issue is being ignored. The shooting was not just a symptom of racism. While obviously a factor in events that day, racism and racial violence have always been present. However, expressing it by mass murder has not. This phenomenon may be related to the fact that </span></span><a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-have-become-more-common-in-the-u-s/" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">mass shootings in general are becoming more common.</a><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"> </span><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"> </span><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;">It is a measure of the extent to which violence has been normalized that few are seriously questioning why. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;"><br />While many people think they have easy explanations for mass shootings, </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/14/why-are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-frequent/" style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">behavioral
scientists have not been able to find evidence for a specific cause.</a><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;"> Though
some form of mental disturbance can be assumed, that does not explain the fact
that these acts are increasing. The rising rate suggests sociological factors
are involved. There is reason to think that a major one may be the
militarization of US society in general. These acts of mass violence, like combat and
unlike most acts of individual violence, are impersonal in the sense that they
are not typically directed toward specific identified individuals. This difference
may help explain why mass killings are increasing while </span><a href="http://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/" style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">the
rate of violent crime in general is falling.</a><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;"> In other words, it isn’t violence in general
that is rising but indiscriminate, mass violence. Just like war.</span><br />
<br /><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">
It’s hard to deny that we are a militarized society. Police departments around
the country have been given DOD weapons under a </span><a href="http://thehill.com/regulation/217136-senators-blast-dod-program-to-militarize-police" style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">program
justified by the “War on Terror</a><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">.” At the same time, </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302389_pf.html" style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">use
and misuse of heavily armed SWAT teams</a><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;"> has exploded, despite the drop in
violent crime. Neither of these trends has been seriously challenged by
government or the citizens it is supposed to represent. Black Lives Matter is dramatizing
the racist police violence that has always been part of the African-American
experience, even if new videos of police murders were not going viral every
other week until now. Peaceful protests of these murders and other outrages are
often </span><a href="http://www.justiceonline.org/fbi_and_federal_government_laid_basis_for_baton_rouge_police_crackdown_on_black_lives_matter" style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">treated
as terrorist events,</a><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;"> with paramilitary police conducting using intimidation,
mass arrests and martial law in a preemptive fashion. It is hardly any wonder
that citizens are perceived as the enemy by many officers. It is predictable
that unstable individuals will see all law enforcement officers in the same
way.</span><br />
<br /><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">
Think about it. Americans under the age of 18 cannot remember a time when the
US was not at war. While the ostensible goal is to eliminate terror, it is
obvious that terror has only increased. The millions of Americans who haven’t
yet realized that the “War on Terror” is self-defeating seem to accept that endless
war is inevitable. That should not be surprising, since most of us who are old
enough to know better seem to have forgotten there was a time when it was
assumed that wars would eventually end. Instead of growing anger at America’s
increasingly belligerent foreign policy and all the misery it is creating, we passively
accept the glorification of the US military. Professional sports and the
corporate media constantly praise the military its members. Our </span><a href="http://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/23/11/19/cessation-of-military-recruiting-in-public-elementary-and-secondary-schools" style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">children
are being aggressively recruited before they are old enough to understand the
risks of what they are agreeing to</a><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">.
How can they know what they are volunteering for, when the media covers
almost nothing about the reality of how the US military operates around the
world, to say nothing about what the real aims of US foreign policy are?</span><br />
<br /><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">
The US has led or supported disastrous interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya and Syria while supporting a fascist government at war with its own
people in Ukraine, backing a right wing Israeli government staging a brutal and
illegal occupation opposed by a significant number of its citizens, and constantly
agitating against Russia and Iran. No thinking person can believe that there is
a logical end game planned except in the delusional minds of those Wall Street
interests bent on global corporate domination, and they are not saying what
that is. </span><br />
<br /><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">
Despite the chaos, destruction and cost in lives and treasure of US foreign
policy, and even in the face of attempts at “political revolution” by both
liberals and conservatives, there is little organized protest against the war
industry and all it represents. Myopically focused on their personal
circumstances, most Americans do not stop to think about what their government
is doing to others around the world in their name. How can we demand justice for Americans when
we are so willing to deny it to people in other nations with no say in the
decisions that are destroying their lives? Even if that were possible, we could
have justice in the US when the national resources are so heavily invested in the
destruction business.</span><br />
<br /><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">
War is considered normal in the US. There is little objection to a proposed war
by members of whichever party occupies the White House at the time. When a
Democrat is in office, almost no party regulars find reason to object to any
war. Although only defensive wars are legal,
Americans largely got behind a “preemptive” war in Iraq. Even after that proved
a disaster, they failed to protest the next wars, because American troops were
not involved in large numbers. Once the
majority of the American public accepted that war was normal, the alarm over
the escalating War of Terror and associated increasing abridgement of civil
rights by Presidents of both parties was muted and soon, largely forgotten. What politicians and the corporate media
ignore are non-issues. </span><br />
<br /><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">
This blasé acceptance of violence on a global scale cannot help but have
consequences for the individual American psyche. How much more true is that for
veterans who have seen the reality of war? Most, motivated by economic
desperation or misguided patriotism, have no idea what they have signed up for
until they are “in the shit.” Killing, or seeing a close comrade killed in
front of you, does horrific damage to the soul of normal humans. They cannot
heal if they return to a society that has no real appreciation for their
sacrifices, doesn’t care to ask if what they gave up their freedoms and risked
their lives for was worth sacrificing for, and is largely ignorant of what they
went through to “defend their freedoms.” </span><br />
<br /><span style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif;">
Reports of Micah Johnson’s military record focus only on his alleged sexual
misconduct. Nothing is said about what he experienced in Afghanistan. Perhaps it
doesn’t matter. He was clearly unstable, though he might be forgiven for seeing
the violence against fellow African-Americans an issue of Black vs White or cop
vs civilian in his mind. He was trained to think that way his whole life. If we
really want to do something about the epidemic of random violence, we have to
start thinking about our own willingness to divide humanity into “us” vs “them.”
Once we realize it is only “us,” our duty is clear.</span></span>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-66362765766658764602016-05-21T09:48:00.001-07:002016-05-21T09:48:39.169-07:00THE REVOLUTION MUST TRANSCEND PARTISANSHIP<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /><br /><br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKRzJHaZfMw2lc3r4F4w7e4wiybU3ITNZygX2PiWaygBzoO4KXJZZmNSuC8z-EsplLCazDCIIY2FBhzit7_7zXKYD1jhzBVV1Zex3otJC8SvzMeWY4y2fNAu7Q_78PIfMIYTnaD18QH6Q/s1600/Trump+and+Sanders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKRzJHaZfMw2lc3r4F4w7e4wiybU3ITNZygX2PiWaygBzoO4KXJZZmNSuC8z-EsplLCazDCIIY2FBhzit7_7zXKYD1jhzBVV1Zex3otJC8SvzMeWY4y2fNAu7Q_78PIfMIYTnaD18QH6Q/s1600/Trump+and+Sanders.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br /><br /><br />In order to sustain the momentum that Sanders has built for a political
revolution, we have to continue to attract new people to the cause, regardless
of the outcome of the primary and general elections. Should Sanders win, this will occur naturally
as Clinton supporters grudgingly fall in behind him like the faithful party
members they are. If he loses and Hillary goes on to win the general election,
it will be much more difficult to convince Clintonites to join the effort. They
are, after all, pretty much by definition willing to settle for whatever the
party can give them. How else could they enthusiastically support someone who
represents everything the other half of the party is revolting against? <br />
<br />
They are also very angry that Sanders continues to use his campaign to
criticize the party, which they see as irresponsible since it boosts chances of
a Trump victory. As usual, supporters of the Democratic status quo want to
blame those who refuse to go along for the results of their complacency. <br />
<br />
It’s obvious that the division between Sanders supporters and Clinton backers
is growing, even while the Democratic establishment is demanding that the party
come together to prevent a Trump presidency. Clinton supporters are alarmed and
angry that Bernie’s legions do not bow down defeated, or at least be grateful
for a symbolic place at the table in July. After all, they would line up behind
Sanders if he had beaten all odds and prevailed despite the systemic disadvantages
he faced. They cannot understand how any
Democrat could consider not voting for anyone with a D after her name if it
meant keeping a Republican out of the White House.<br />
<br />
Given this simplistic view of politics, Clintonites conclude that Sanders
supporters are just being unreasonable. They attribute the anger they are
seeing to youthful naïveté, misogyny, or the fact that Sanders continues to
express anger at the Democratic status quo. Only the latter argument has any
serious basis, but only a blind partisan would argue that criticizing what the
party has become is a bad thing. In fact, their failure to acknowledge the validity
of Sanders’ critique is the real source of his supporters’ anger. <br />
<br />
If Clinton’s advocates cannot be made to understand the central importance of
Sanders’ challenge to the corruption of the system, we must look elsewhere to
build a movement that continues when the Sanders campaign ends. Should she prevail in November, it may
actually be easier to recruit Trump followers to the cause than her supporters.
Not being blinded by the corporate media spin on Wall Street’s darling, Trump’s
fans may be more amenable than Clinton supporters to the idea of working together
on issues on which most Americans agree. Trump and Sanders supporters already have in
common that they both reject the Duopoly leadership. Both are increasingly
aware that Duopoly politicians are subservient to interests other than our own.
Given the positions Trump has taken, it is clear that his supporters are not as
ideological as progressives typically assume Republicans to be. If we can learn
to stop thinking in partisan terms, we can find common cause on many issues. In
addition to mutual contempt for the Duopoly establishment, there is widespread
nonpartisan agreement many critical issues that Trump and Sanders support and on
which Clinton’s record is at odds with public opinion.<br />
<br />
It’s time to abandon the assumption that politics is a battle between
fundamentally opposing forces of the right, represented by Republicans, and a left
represented by Democrats. This
simplistic dichotomy is so deeply engrained in Clinton supporters that they cannot
comprehend why Sanders and his supporters are challenging what the Democratic
Party has become. Their identification with the party brand is so strong that
many question whether an independent progressive like Sanders is a “real
Democrat,” but fail to ask themselves how they define the term. They assume
that any politician who calls herself one is, regardless of how much her
neoliberal and neoconservative record resembles that of a typical Republican. For
many such Democrats, the choice is not which candidate best represents them but
whether that candidate can prevent the dreaded outcome of a Republican in the
White House. They consider themselves on
“the left” simply by virtue of party membership. <br />
<br />
In contrast, Trump supporters do not identify with the Republican Party, even
if most are members. Among them are many who might be persuaded to consider the
Sanders message, if their candidate does not win and they face four to eight
years of Clinton. Sure, some are just attracted by racism and many by his
willingness to say whatever foolish thought crosses his mind, but many Trump
enthusiasts like some of the good ideas he claims to support. Many of his
positions echo those of Sanders: opposing free trade, ending policies of regime
change, mandating a living wage, restoring civil liberties, having a more
balanced relationship with Israel and most importantly, campaign finance
reform. A great many people are
impressed by the fact that Trump’s campaign is largely self-funded. True or
not, they see this as evidence that he is not beholden to special interests. Those
who think these issues are important are people who may be able to understand
that “making America great again” has nothing to do with making it whiter and
everything to do with ending corruption of government by special interests. <br />
<br />
The average Trump booster may even be more ready for political revolution than
some Sanders supporters. All of them firmly reject the Republican establishment,
while many Sanders supporters are ready to vote for Clinton she wins the
nomination, despite the fact that she stands for everything Sanders is fighting
against. Those of us dedicated to bringing about political revolution know that
it begins with challenging the corruption of the system. That starts by
refusing to vote for any politician who is the clear choice of the same
interests that back both Duopoly parties. Maverick status is another thing that
Trump and Sanders share. If we stick to issues and not personalities, there is
a chance that we can overcome the suspiciousness that the corporate media and
politicians have deliberately created between us and work together toward the
common goal of establishing representative government in the US.<br />
<br />
It is the opposition to being led by politicians who put the interest of the economic
elite over those of average Americans that should bind people from across the
political spectrum in this common cause. When 80% of Americans have expressed
opposition to Citizens United, it seems obvious that we should be able to work
together to do something about it. That is exactly what the Sanders revolution
is all about. If we want politicians to represent us, we have to stop applying
ideological labels to ideas that can lead to solutions to problems that affect
us all. “Conservative” and “liberal”
should be relative terms, not absolutes. If we don’t allow others define what
we are supposed to believe, we can find that consensus necessary for true
representative government. If we can
make it that far, we can then decide through the democratic process what kind
of country we want to be.Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-53858624151213980082016-05-13T11:19:00.000-07:002016-05-14T15:16:49.118-07:00BEYOND BERNIE: THE EVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkEF_ce6SV_ZRLp6l3PsoN6_TeAfXHm9VCu2QSydZF5b6NllPgT-ax9Zo5jaX7J7zU_-v-XIgt3CA-npvnpXW1hBxsXwzGtLR6P3g0Tgpo3n8EYcy2ACm-9U7qmtPeRyut13Vp0zEPk08/s1600/Get+money+out.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkEF_ce6SV_ZRLp6l3PsoN6_TeAfXHm9VCu2QSydZF5b6NllPgT-ax9Zo5jaX7J7zU_-v-XIgt3CA-npvnpXW1hBxsXwzGtLR6P3g0Tgpo3n8EYcy2ACm-9U7qmtPeRyut13Vp0zEPk08/s320/Get+money+out.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Those of us on the left know that what Sanders calls a "revolution" is only the first step in the transformation necessary to produce a just society. Some of us labor under the delusion that if we are patient, some day Americans will rise up and overthrow the system that oppresses us. Even more unreasonably, some think this can somehow be done without dirtying our hands in electoral politics. Others argue that it can only be done by building a third party to challenge the corporate Duopoly. While creating an alternative to the Duopoly will play a role in the ultimate transformation of American politics, it will take many years to realize. We simply do not have the luxury of time. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">The reality is that global climate change sets an upper limit on how long we have to act.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;"> Until we begin electing candidates who will stand up to the Wall Street-dominated fossil fuels industry, we are living with a sword hanging over our heads. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">When "liberal" Americans seem prepared to select the darling of Wall Street to represent them in the presidential election, there is too much groundwork to be done to create a viable third party before it is too late.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Clinton's success despite her high unfavorability ratings shows how far we have to go to educate the public about the need for revolution and what that will entail. We must begin with the system as it is, meet the people where they are at, and hope that by speaking to them in their language, we can lead them to question the assumptions that keep them captive of a system designed to favor the interests of the powerful. That means elections matter, even if one victory does not in itself constitute a "revolution." They provide platforms from which to educate and organize those who have not given up altogether on rescuing the US and the world from the dire circumstances we have allowed it to fall into. Sanders has shown how this can be done without depending on the very interests who control the system to get this opportunity.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The question remains as to whether the Sanders candidacy
will advance the cause of a real revolution, or impede it. If his supporters simply cave in and support
Clinton, they will show that they are unwilling to challenge the practice of
fear-based “strategic” voting promoted by the Democratic leadership. The grip
on power of the party elite depends on successfully convincing us that voting
for corporate Democrats is the only alternative to Republican rule. It is not.
If their jobs depended on it, these power brokers would have to give us
candidates who actually represent the People’s will. If the majority of Democrats continue to
accept the lesser of two evils logic, they have no reason to expect that the
party’s steady drift to the right will ever end. If they refuse to vote for the
anointed candidate of the limousine liberals, we have a chance to force change.<br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A lot of people have been saying since the beginning of the
Democratic primary campaign that Sanders would end up doing more harm than good
to the cause of fundamentally changing the system of American politics.
Assuming that he would lose in the end, they pointed out that his ultimate
endorsement of Clinton would serve simply to shore up a party that can no longer
generate excitement among even its most faithful members because its chosen
candidates are unwilling to challenge the moneyed interests that he is
targeting. The naysayer’s argument was
that, like past insurgent candidates for the Democratic nomination, he would
serve as a sheepherder for the Duopoly party claiming to represent “the People”
by encouraging his disappointed supporters to rally round the choice of the
Establishment. While this is a distinct possibility, those committed to a real
revolution need to understand that we cannot succeed without learning to
recognize and capitalize on every opportunity. <br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Whether or not Sanders wins the nomination, his amazing run
presents such an opening, one we may not get again. While he can help advance
the cause beyond the convention, let’s remember that he has told us endlessly
that the outcome of the struggle is in our hands. We have to be prepared to
respond to the very real possibility that Sanders himself will abdicate
leadership in the movement he has begun, even while encouraging him to stay the
course. We have to help him fight for every vote to continue getting his
message out during the campaign and at the convention. We must also encourage
him to set his sights higher than simply making the case for progressive
policies before a convention run by politicians whose primary interest is
maintaining power and who believe that can only be done by kowtowing to the
corporate elite. Words must be followed
by action.<br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/10/ralph_nader_sanders_should_stay_in">Ralph
Nader</a> recently argued that if Sanders were to lose at convention, he could
still keep his word to endorse Clinton, while challenging her corporate vision.
There is nothing to stop him from continuing his assault on neoliberalism and
corruption that is the root cause of America’s malaise. While justifying his
ongoing efforts as a way to rally his troops to defeat Trump, he can continue
to barnstorm in favor of the Democrats. The key is that rather than promoting
the failed policies of Clintonism, he can argue for those Democratic values
that people want to believe the party represents. This will prepare us for
continuing to fight for them if Clinton is elected, rather than abandoning the
fight as Obama supporters did after 2008, with predictable results. <br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
A true political revolution must be based on addressing the
corruption upon which the current system is built. Sanders has gotten the ball
rolling, focusing our attention on the fact that the entire progressive
movement depends on dealing with this problem. With our encouragement, he can
keep the movement going forward. Even without his cooperation, we can proceed
on our own. He has provided us a glimpse of our collective power. We have to
use it, organizing around the issue of corruption and highlighting how the
consequences play out in a Clinton presidency, as they no doubt will if her
policies are consistent with her atrocious record of neoliberalism,
neoconservatism and generally favoring the interests of Wall Street over Main
Street. <br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 18.4px;">A true political revolution must be based on addressing the corruption upon which the current system is built. Sanders has gotten the ball rolling, focusing our attention on the fact that the entire progressive movement depends on dealing with this problem. With our encouragement, he can keep the movement going forward. Even without his cooperation, we can proceed on our own. He has provided us a glimpse of our collective power. We have to use it, organizing around the issue of corruption and highlighting how the consequences play out in a Clinton presidency, as they no doubt will if her policies are consistent with her atrocious record of neoliberalism, neoconservatism and generally favoring the interests of Wall Street over Main Street.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 18.4px;"> </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 18.4px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 18.4px;">If we can get average Americans to set their sights that high, they might be able to glimpse the more fundamental changes that will be required to reshape the US economy and society into something that will enable future generations to not only survive, but thrive.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-91564547427845954842016-05-06T14:47:00.001-07:002016-05-12T14:45:21.707-07:00THE BATTERED DEMOCRAT SYNDROME: UNDERSTANDING CLINTON SUPPORTERS<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jFuCSVOQnl4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jFuCSVOQnl4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /><br /><br /><br /> </span><br />
Okay, I’ll admit it. I have often lost patience with long-time friends support
Clinton. I have been impatient and said disrespectful things that I regret. I
don’t want to make excuses for my behavior, but in my defense I have to say
that it is very frustrating that so few of them seem to be willing to take a
look at why “Bernie bros” are so adamant in their support of Sanders. It seems
obvious to us that we have an historic opportunity to decisively reject the
assumption that a person can only be elected President if they are backed by
powerful economic players. How could anyone choose Wall Street’s golden girl
over a champion of campaign finance reform and all the progressive battles we
will never win until it is achieved? To paraphrase the unofficial motto of the
first Clinton’s campaign: “It’s the corruption, stupid!<br />
<br />
That’s not meant to be personal, of course. It’s just that the seemingly
willful blindness of Clinton supporters is maddening to those of us who
recognize the need for a real political revolution to end control of the
political process by the narrow economic elite she represents. However, the
idea that they are willing to stay with a candidate who has done nothing but
abuse them and sweet talk them with broken promises should inspire pity, not
wrath. Their passion for Clinton may be irrational, but isn’t that the nature
of love? It is not helpful to lash out at them for seeing the best in her, even
when what they see is not there. That is, after all, a common feature in the
battered spouse syndrome. Democrats who support Clinton show all the signs of
this depressingly common condition.<br />
<br />
We Sanders supporters are not helping our case by lashing out at the very
people we should be trying to reach. We need to take a deep breath, remember
that these are people we care about, and realize that self-destructive
behaviors are common in people who have been abused. We may be surprised that
they are not acting like the people we thought they were, but these are our friends! We have been through so much with them over
the years that we cannot abandon them when they most need understanding. It is no
doubt this emotional bond that makes us so angry when we see them debase
themselves by asking for more abuse from the Democratic Party. We are only
angry at them because we care.<br />
<br />
Despite a long history of abusive relationships with past Democratic politicians,
those who have fallen victim to Clinton’s wiles fail to recognize that the
party they have sworn not to forsake is not what they thought it was. Like
victims of other forms of abuse, they seem to be attracted to those very characteristics
which prevent a healthy relationship. While the dysfunctional nature of the relationship
is obvious to those of us who can view the situation objectively, to the
star-crossed hopefuls who desperately want to believe that they have found true
love, the party can do no wrong. Every time they think they have found someone
who understands them and who shares their interests, they find out too late (if
ever) that they are understood all too well, and have fallen for another politician
who will exploit their weakness for their own purposes.<br />
<br />
Clinton supporters are often quite intelligent people. Knowing this, their friends
have to wonder why they tolerate the abuse they have suffered from the
Democratic Party without complaint. The answer isn’t complicated. They are so
blinded by the love for the one they are in bed with that they accept any
excuse for her actions that allows them to cling to the fantasy that they are
cared for. Confronted with <a href="https://byteboy.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/list-of-ten-hillary-clinton-lies/">bald
faced lies</a>, they would rather accept <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/">ridiculous excuses</a>
than face the truth that the person they have chosen has no respect for them. The
fact that a number of these lies are over such <a href="https://byteboy.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/list-of-ten-hillary-clinton-lies/">trivial
matters</a> that they <a href="https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090130000729AAEgO40">suggest
a compulsion</a> doesn’t even seem to cause them concern.<br />
<br />
Oh sure, such people can be nice. Not to accuse Clinton specifically, but let’s
admit it: Everyone knows that <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-psychopath-means/">psychopaths
can be the most charming people in the world</a>. For instance, the fact that
she makes a show of supporting the rights of women and children in public doesn’t
necessarily mean she is compassionate. If this were a deeply held value, would
she not care as much for women and children in <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35011-hillary-the-hawk">Iraq, Ukraine,
Libya, Syrian or any nation targeted by her neocon friends</a>? Her capacity
for violence is well known, and at times she does not even bother to hide <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U">the pleasure it brings her</a>.
It doesn’t cost her a thing to say nice things about people to get votes, but
those who are taken in are not seeing the glaring inconsistencies in her
behavior. <br />
<br />
I don’t want people to get the idea that I am exaggerating my concerns about my
Clinton-loving friends for effect. For the most part, the abuse has been subtle
but all the signs are there. Let’s face it: If they haven’t learned from the mistakes they
have made in past relationships, they aren’t going to see this one coming. They
are likely to deny it when it gets worse, and the suffering she inflicts gets
more serious. Just look at how many of them still moon over Bill, after all his
transgressions. He wasn’t just a liar and a cheater. He put our finances at
risk with NAFTA and banking regulation, destroyed the party’s already shaky reputation
for favoring diplomacy over war by introducing “humanitarian intervention” in
Kosovo, and did a lot of other disgraceful things that Clintonites have
forgiven or forgotten, if they were ever acknowledged. <br />
<br />
Although she now repudiates her support of her husband’s <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/">crime
bills</a>, opposition to gay marriage, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/">welfare
“reforms”</a> and claims to have never supported NAFTA, Hillary is on record as
having promoted all of it. She is also <a href="http://www.foreconomicjustice.org/15182/hillary-clinton-opposes-reinstating-glass-steagall">opposed
to reinstating an updated version of Glass-Steagall</a> that Bill eliminated,
obfuscating the issue by pretending that Sanders doesn’t understand the role of
the shadow finance industry. Doubling down on her <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillarys-nafta-lie/">claim to have opposed
NAFTA</a> from the beginning instead of only during the 2008 campaign, she now <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Clinton-s-record-on-free-t-by-Rick-Staggenborg--Free-Trade_Tisa_Tisa-Trade-In-Services-Agreement-Financial-Service_Ttp-160306-561.html">wants
us to trust her claim that she opposes the TPP</a>, which she played a key role
in negotiating.<br />
<br />
I am trying to be understanding, but like many Americans, I am dismayed at the
fact that anyone who considers herself a progressive would choose a
business-as-usual “pragmatist” like Clinton over someone with a long record of
supporting real solutions to the problems threatening the US middle class. Anyone who looks at the record of past failed
relationships with Democratic politicians objectively can see the problem is in
falling in love with the false image they present to us, even when all the
clues are there. <br />
<br />
We don’t have to “settle.” We deserve better. Despite our past mistakes in choosing who to
trust, we do not deserve to be treated this way. The only reason anyone accepts
this is that they don’t want to face the shame of being played for a fool. The
truth is that most of us have been there at some point in our lives. We need to
let those stuck in this mental prison know they are not alone. It is not being
“realistic” to accept that they cannot do better. Now that we actually have a
choice, we need to take it. Let’s recognize that ever since Bill strayed off on
the Third Way, Democrats have lost their sense of identity. They must find the
will to deal with the endemic corruption of electoral politics that the
Democratic establishment has embraced. At
the risk of idealizing Sanders as “Mr. Right,” the choice seems clear.Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-42527671906506861222016-04-27T15:17:00.000-07:002016-04-27T15:17:34.281-07:00THE IMPECCABLE LOGIC OF BERNIE OR BUST<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhohia5l61OwG-A2cmqlTkey6YI8gET-6dx8FsfoJKO4tQ007_94rtVv5FGqu0MbWLM97QO0b0oXb5eBsLREpFrZvp5VZjEmrR026Nhk6tki1X1ZmfUGlkwt_A9DahboKG79LfnXksRMSU/s1600/Bernie+or+Bust.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="font-family: calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhohia5l61OwG-A2cmqlTkey6YI8gET-6dx8FsfoJKO4tQ007_94rtVv5FGqu0MbWLM97QO0b0oXb5eBsLREpFrZvp5VZjEmrR026Nhk6tki1X1ZmfUGlkwt_A9DahboKG79LfnXksRMSU/s1600/Bernie+or+Bust.jpg" /></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />Now that Clinton has virtually sewed up the Democratic nomination, it’s time
for Sanders supporters to reassess their commitment to the political revolution
he represents. There seems little doubt that those who have not yet voted will
cast their ballots for him when they have the chance. The issue is what they
will do in November. It is a sure thing that the revolution will not continue if
Bernie’s backers line up behind with Clinton. Will they submit to the politics
of fear, hold their noses and vote for the representative of all that they
stand against, as Clinton and her smug supporters assume? Or will they hold their ground, choosing to
risk a Trump presidency to make the point that there is a line that
progressives will not cross? That is the question at the heart of the Bernie or
Bust strategy. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/">It has been argued
that Bernie or Bust was a way to influence how Democrats voted in the primaries</a>.
The idea was that if voters leaning toward Clinton understood the depth of
disgust toward the <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/27/hillary-wall-streets-golden-girl/">darling
of Wall Street</a>, they would realize that she could actually lose by Sanders
supporters withholding their support. The hope was that many of those who
preferred Sanders’ stands on the issues would quit rationalizing their support
of Clinton on the false premise that she was more electable, which <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/national-polls-suggest-that-bernie-sanders-may-be-more-electable-than-hillary-clinton/">polls
have consistently indicated is not the case</a>. That argument is now moot, however. So, is there
still a place for the Bernie or Bust strategy, or was it always just about appealing
to the fears of Democratic rank-and-file? For anyone who understands just how
desperately we need a political revolution, the only possible answer is a
resounding “yes.”<br />
<br />
It is positively mind-blowing to many Sanders supporters that a majority of
Democrats nationwide have up until now cast their votes for a candidate <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/INVESTING/HILLARY-CLINTON-WALL-STREET/INDEX.HTML">backed
by Wall Street</a> who has a record of
unrivaled militarism, <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-vast-left-wing-conspir-by-Rick-Staggenborg--People-160218-340.html">claims
that universal health care is economically unsound</a> despite all the proof to
the contrary, who <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=22&v=-dY77j6uBHI">lies
even about trivial things (and then about lying about them),</a> <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Clinton-s-record-on-free-t-by-Rick-Staggenborg--Free-Trade_Tisa_Tisa-Trade-In-Services-Agreement-Financial-Service_Ttp-160306-561.html">backs
free trade <i>except</i> when running for
President</a>, calls her Democratic opponent <a href="http://solonews.net/258791/news/sanders-campaign-says-clinton-owes-apology-for-calling.html">a
liar</a> and his supports <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/01/26/i_have_had_it_with_naive_bernie_sanders_idealists/">naïve</a>,
then insists that he is destroying the Democrat’s chance to beat Trump. There
are no rational grounds to argue that she is any kind of progressive, even in
the absolutely broadest sense of the term. Those serious about political “revolution” can
hardly support her just when they have the chance to make clear the depth of
their conviction that they can no longer accept the status quo.<br />
<br />
What Clinton supporters do not seem to realize is that this election is not
just about what we are going to accomplish in the next four years. It is about
how to reverse the 25-year slide to the right the US has undergone since the
last Clinton gave us the “<a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511755645">third way</a>,” which
many refer to as “Republican lite.” Blind Democratic loyalists do not seem to realize
that the party has not failed because “conservative” ideas have become more
popular, but because those who profess progressive ideals are unwilling to demand
that politicians fight for real political solutions, <a href="http://takebackamericaforthepeople.blogspot.com/2009/11/chapter-one-why-democracy-for-america.html">or
even discuss them</a>. The Democratic strategy for negotiations always starts
with the assumption that nothing is “politically possible” if it challenges the
interests of the economic elite who finance the campaigns of candidates of both
Duopoly parties. This reflexive attitude is a direct result of Bill Clinton’s
capitulation to the corrupting influence of money in politics, the fight
against which is at the heart of the Sanders campaign.<br />
<br />
It started when Bill Clinton supported NAFTA, welfare “reform,” banking
deregulation, “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo, three strikes,
discriminatory drug crime sentencing and other policies favored by the
conservatives and corporate donors he was courting. He has never been held
responsible for doing what no Republican would have been able to. Like Hillary,
he was granted immunity from all his reprehensible actions because he was
unjustly accused of others. The time for excuses is over. <br />
<br />
The American economy has been devastated by the actions of Clinton’s Wall
Street patrons, who not only remain unpunished but continue to direct economic
policy. Economic inequality rivals that of the Gilded Age. College debt is economically
handicapping a generation. Health care costs remain out of control and tens of
millions remain uninsured despite the added cost to taxpayers of Obamacare. We
are engaged in what appears to be endless war, with Clinton promising to double
down in Syria, Libya and anywhere else where the interests of her corporate
backers in the military industrial complex are threatened. Most critically, we
are entering a period when climate instability threatens the existence of human
civilization and possibly the survival of mankind. <br />
<br />
It seems unlikely that Clinton will have the courage to challenge the Wall
Street-dominated fossil fuel industries when she has <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/04/01/bernie-sanders-took-money-from-the-fossil-fuel-lobby-too-just-not-much/">collected
millions from bundlers and individuals working in the fossil fuel industry and
from SuperPacs funded by large industry donations</a>. While Sanders has received
contributions from individuals in the industry, he has not only <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/01/11/sanders-first-sign-fix-democracy-pledge-rejecting-fossil-fuel-cash">refused
to take any money from fossil fuels corporations,</a> but has sponsored in each
of the last three Congresses <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/21/bernie-sanders-files-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united.html">constitutional
amendments that would ban corporate campaign contributions</a>. He has also
explicitly <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/272001-sanders-my-answer-is-a-lot-shorter-than-clinton-on-fracking">come
out against fracking</a>, which <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron">Clinton
has long supported</a>. While Clinton called the phony “war on terror” her
number one national security priority, <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/260184-sanders-climate-change-still-greatest-threat-to-national-security">Sanders
correctly identified it as global climate change.</a> <br />
<br />
Climate change will determine how much time we have to deal with the
consequences of corporate control of the US government. As Bill McKibbin and
others have been warning with increasing urgency, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719">time
is running out to act</a>. There is nothing in Clinton’s record to suggest that
she will stand up to those who have put her in power. Even when she claims to
oppose a corporate power grab like TPP or NAFTA, she <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Clinton-s-record-on-free-t-by-Rick-Staggenborg--Free-Trade_Tisa_Tisa-Trade-In-Services-Agreement-Financial-Service_Ttp-160306-561.html">only
does so when she is in the spotlight of a presidential campaign</a> and in
doing so, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillarys-nafta-lie/">lies about
her record of past support</a>. How can we trust her when the survival of the
planet is at stake?<br />
<br />
“Incrementalism” has proven itself over the years to be two steps backward for
every one forward. Clintonism has been the path that has led to this point. We
cannot wait four years or more to let the Democratic Party know that we are not
going to tolerate the corruption of the system that has led <a href="http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/">nearly 40% of Americans
to give up on voting</a>. If we are ever going to force our government to act
in our own interests, we must refuse to vote for candidates who make excuses
for not even trying, calling it “pragmatism.” The only reason that single payer
health care, ending a self-defeating “war” on terror, regulating the banking
and finance industry and creating an economy that works for everyone are “not
politically possible” is that average Americans and their elected officials
accept the corruption of money in politics as normal, when it should be
unacceptable.<br />
<br />
Now is the time for the <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Which-way-to-the-revolutio-by-Rick-Staggenborg--Bernie-Sanders_Corporatists_Corruption_Democratic-160228-767.html">real
revolution</a> to begin. <br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span>Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-27063618608452211132016-04-20T17:09:00.000-07:002016-04-20T18:09:15.110-07:00BERNIE’S LAST SHOT<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPfclPgpq8pe4wYXgD2h8g2CVPRxOYPSsV4uO0koUORD3mMRz3DClyxXuFCKlpA6g2yl3HRWhaXl15djRl6r5w9v-J7vwadAr-c0XSb90qxgw_NXQB90mvIHxlS7t03KD4Ny6VYMrnxJA/s1600/Get+money+out.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPfclPgpq8pe4wYXgD2h8g2CVPRxOYPSsV4uO0koUORD3mMRz3DClyxXuFCKlpA6g2yl3HRWhaXl15djRl6r5w9v-J7vwadAr-c0XSb90qxgw_NXQB90mvIHxlS7t03KD4Ny6VYMrnxJA/s320/Get+money+out.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Most people, myself included, predicted that if Sanders didn't win New York he would be pretty much out of the race. Admittedly, the math doesn't look good. Even if you disregard the highly debatable assumption that the superdelegates who have endorsed Clinton would defy the will of the voters in the event that Bernie pulled off a miracle, he will have to win a remarkably high percentage of Democratic votes in the remaining primaries to enter the convention with even a slim lead. There is a way that he could do that, however: Clinton-leaning Democratic voters in the remaining races could choose to vote for the candidate who best represents their views. </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">How many Clinton voters have you heard say "I love Sanders' positions on the issues, BUT"?" These reluctant "supporters" have been voting for her in large numbers only because they believe that she is the most viable candidate in the general election or that she is the one who could get the most done, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. What if a significant proportion of them decided to stop rationalizing their decision to voting against their preferred candidate? While I am not aware of any poll data to back this up, I suspect this would give Sanders the edge he needs to bring in the kind of numbers that would make superdelegates think twice about defying the will of the voters.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">None of the earlier arguments about why Sanders still has a chance have changed, even if the odds have dropped because of his unexpectedly sound defeat in New York. He still has the advantage of momentum. It's true that this has momentarily stalled, but one loss does not a trend make. He has still won seven out of the last eight races and is the favorite in the upcoming primaries. While Clinton's more fanatical supporters seem blind to the fact, superdelegates will surely have to recognize that the better Sanders is known, the better his poll numbers, while the more familiar voters become with Clinton's record (as opposed to her resume) the lower her favorability ratings. That's not what delegates endorsing her want to see when their own political futures depend on backing the winning horse.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">In terms of electability come November, Sanders has won about as many swing states as Clinton, but may have a better chance in the general. He outperforms her with independents and continues to outpoll her in head to head polls against Trump and other potential Republican nominees. Add to this the fact that </span><a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-supporters-not-vote-clinton-221642" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" target="_blank" title="">25 percent of Sanders supporters say they will not vote for her,</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;"> and there could be harm to the party's down ticket prospects as well since many young voters will likely not show up at all. Ignoring the anger at politics-as-usual, Clinton supporters have been demanding that Sanders supporters bend to the party will, hold their noses and vote for yet another corporatist candidate. Since they sincerely believe that it is only logical to vote for whatever politician has a D after his or her name, even those who say they won't vote for Sanders because they are upset at some of his supporters would be unlikely to withhold their votes for him should he be nominated.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Viability in the general election is by far the most important issue superdelegates should be concerned with, since that is what determines their reward for supporting a candidate. If enough Democrats decide that they are tired of voting for candidates who won't make a serious effort (if any) to fight on basic issues like </span><a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2016/02/the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-to-defeat.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" target="_blank" title="">single payer</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">, a </span><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-clinton-spar-over-minimum-wage-increases-1460910281?mod=rss_US_News" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" target="_blank" title="">$15 minimum wage</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">, ending destructive </span><a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2016/03/national-and-global-implications-of.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" target="_blank" title="">free trade policies,</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;"> </span><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/14/1515240/-Politifact-Does-Hillary-Clinton-support-fracking" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" target="_blank" title="">addressing global climate change</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">, winding down </span><a href="http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35011-hillary-the-hawk" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" target="_blank" title="">endless wars</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;"> or </span><a href="http://www.foreconomicjustice.org/15182/hillary-clinton-opposes-reinstating-glass-steagall" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" target="_blank" title="">seriously taking on Wall Street</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">, their reward will be even greater: They will have an advocate who will </span><a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2016/02/sanders-v-clinton-revolution-or-civil.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;" target="_blank" title="">keep the spotlight onto the corruption</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;"> of the political process that has led the party to the brink of selecting a candidate who epitomizes neoliberal and neoconservative values that are antithetical to traditional Democratic positions. </span></div>
Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-61607553782636346782016-04-16T15:12:00.000-07:002016-04-16T15:23:04.591-07:00SYRIA: OBAMA’S BAY OF PIGS <span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /><br /> <br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj9scv_DLigNIqn-POgBhIhXEQ406yZQv1kPUM2dLKZiK17HA-PcKtdx6QxzTDAWVP-vsLSXSbXTcTAdxVifVFlThXlOfTXbPE2A8fM5HanyINDt-kvm6MH_xklmEwXACRiDCxgKx9v9M/s1600/Obama+war+on+syria.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj9scv_DLigNIqn-POgBhIhXEQ406yZQv1kPUM2dLKZiK17HA-PcKtdx6QxzTDAWVP-vsLSXSbXTcTAdxVifVFlThXlOfTXbPE2A8fM5HanyINDt-kvm6MH_xklmEwXACRiDCxgKx9v9M/s1600/Obama+war+on+syria.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
No one is going to get rich reading tea leaves to predict the outcome of the
US-backed terrorist invasion of Syria. There are so many confusing events that
it’s difficult to keep track of trends that might indicate which way the war on
Assad (and the majority of Syrians) is going. That’s why few people have
noticed certain positive developments that may indicate that <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Putin-s-Syrian-surprise-we-by-Rick-Staggenborg--Assad_Diplomacy_Imperialism_Isis-160315-180.html">Obama
is seeking a way out with what is left of America’s honor.</a> Whether this
will lead to a stand down of US efforts at regime change will depend on whether
Obama is willing to risk yet another confrontation with influential neocons who
are still intent on crippling Iranian influence in the region through destabilizing
the Syrian government.<br />
<br />
The most recent round of peace talks are not likely to be the sham that
previous ones were. Despite Kerry’s tough talk of a Plan B, the US has dropped
demands that Assad step down as a precondition to a deal. The alternative to a
negotiated resolution, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-readies-plan-b-to-arm-syria-rebels-1460509400">recently
leaked to the Wall Street Journal</a>, would involve escalating the conflict by
providing more dangerous weapons to the jihadist “rebels.” However, the plan is
most likely being presented as the only credible alternative to capitulation to
Russian demands in Geneva. Knowing how man-portable
air defense systems (Manpads) could be used by the terrorists in the wake of a
collapse of the Syrian government, supplying them to the al Qaeda-affiliated
anti-Assad forces would be lunacy. It would make little sense for Obama to give
in to Saudi demands to do so at this point, when he has resisted the temptation
for five years. <br />
<br />
Erdogan may be starting to see the futility of further attempts to take down
Assad. The most recent evidence of this is <a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/04/turkey-iran-saudi-arabia-dual-track-diplomacy.html?utm_source=Al-Monitor+Newsletter+%5BEnglish%5D&utm_campaign=1104201e9e-April_13_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28264b27a0-1104201e9e-102426465">a
series of high level Turkish visits to Saudi Arabia and Iran</a>. While Turkey
and Iran have common economic interests and a mutual desire to prevent the
emergence of an independent Kurdish state, it is hard to imagine that they
could make much progress on working together as long as Turkey is pursuing a
foreign policy course that is an existential threat to Iran’s status as a
regional power. There are other compelling reasons for Erdogan to try to make
nice with the Sauds, but it is unlikely that he will be able to thaw relations at
the same time he is negotiating with their nemesis. Unless, that is, they are also
discussing letting go of the goal of toppling Assad.<br />
<br />
There are also clues that the Obama administration US efforts are being stepped
up to curb further Saudi aid to terrorist “rebels.” The barrage of criticism
that the Saudis are taking in the US media is unprecedented and most likely
orchestrated. It is also somewhat risky, in that it highlights the cynicism of
US “humanitarian interventions” against targeted dictators while it is allied
with the most brutal, repressive regime in the region. From Biden pointing out
that it is the chief financial sponsor of terrorists in the region to recent critical
reports on the generally politically correct <a href="http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=frontline+saudi+arabia+uncovered&view=detail&mid=7663D371C727F935F2CE7663D371C727F935F2CE&FORM=VIRE">Frontline</a>
and <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/275793-60-minutes-classified-28-pages-may-shed-light-on-saudi-ties-to-terrorism">60
Minutes</a> to Obama’s announcement that the government is <a href="http://lawnewz.com/important/report-obama-may-release-the-classified-28-pages-redacted-from-911-report-in-next-60-days/">about
to make a decision after two years on declassifying the 28 pages</a> of a
report said to implicate high level government officials in financing the 9/11
attack, the heat is clearly being turned on these feckless “allies.” <br />
<br />
Cynics who charged that this was only a ruse to buy time to regroup for a renewed
attack on Syrian forces seem to be ignoring evidence that the situation has
changed since the earlier attempts to “negotiate” a US-dictated solution in
Geneva. Realists in the Obama administration seem to be serious this time. Kerry
was forced into agreeing to talks by the timely intervention of Russia. He had no real choice. Had the offensive continued unchecked, Assad’s
forces would have routed ISIS and Putin would have been able to dictate terms. This is what forced Kerry to agree to peace
talks despite having to bargain from a weak position. <br />
<br />
In addition, Erdogan’s panicked response to the prospect of new peace talks
suggests that he believes that the Americans are looking for resolution. Having
responded to advances by the Russian and Syrian militaries and Kurdish defense
forces by stepping up threats, he doubled down once talks were announced, at
one point <a href="http://whatreallyhappened.org/ru/content/imminent-turkish-invasion-syria-erdogan-will-not-invade-syria-without-washington%E2%80%99s-permissio#axzz461eCbIaE">declaring
that an invasion was not off the table</a> although when directly confronted
with Russian accusations, he <a href="http://20read.com/middle-east/erdogan-calls-russian-claim-of-syria-invasion-plan-laughable/">denied
any such intent</a>. The Turkish military was reported to be against such an
ill-advised action, but troop buildups along the border had <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkeys-second-army-prepares-to-invade-syria/5507520">convinced
many that he was serious</a>. <br />
<br />
The Turkish call for invasion was echoed by Saudi Arabia, which offered to take
part in a joint campaign if it was led by the US. This was obviously just bluster. After all, the
threat of invasion was the result of Erdogan’s frustration at US unwillingness
to prioritize defeating Assad or to abandon its alliance with Syrian Kurds in
the fight against ISIS. There was no way that the US was going to support an
invasion that would risk WWIII by targeting both the Kurdish YPG and Assad, backed
by Russia and Iran. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, at this point <a href="http://whatreallyhappened.org/ru/content/imminent-turkish-invasion-syria-erdogan-will-not-invade-syria-without-washington%E2%80%99s-permissio#axzz461eCbIaE">many
analysts still assumed that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were merely following
orders from Washington</a>. Others saw Erdogan’s increasingly rash actions as desperate
attempts to salvage the standing of his ruling Justice and Development Party
(AKP) amidst an economy in decline at least partly because of Russian sanctions.
Rumor had it that he even had reason to worry about an impending military coup.
<a href="http://newseurope.eu/2016/03/13/erdogans-conundrum-trigger-military-coup-turkey/">Although
the Turkish military denied it and analysts generally dismissed the idea,</a>
had he tried to order his generals to carry out a full-scale invasion in defiance
of US wishes, a coup would have been much more likely. <br />
<br />
When the US proceeded to resume peace talks on Syria while Turkey and Saudi
Arabia talked war, it became clear that the actions of the three nations were
not coordinated. Saudi Arabia and Turkey had become isolated on the global
stage. Obama had established that he was
not going to allow the tail to wag the dog, and that he was going to act in
what he considered US interests. There is a reason that Obama is no longer making
Assad’s departure a precondition for negotiations. It would not have changed
anything unless the US had been allowed to pick his successor. The only way
that was going to happen was through direct military force, which <a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2013/09/is-obamas-call-for-vote-on-syria-kosher.html">Obama
has clearly been trying to avoid</a>. He was willing to <a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2013/06/the-obama-doctrine.html">use
al Qaeda associated “rebels” as proxy fighters as he did in Libya</a>, but the
goal was not so much regime change as destabilizing and ultimately balkanizing
the country, a goal which has largely been achieved. The strategy of dividing a
nation into smaller political entities to weaken it is the essence of the <a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33220.htm">Oded Yinon
plan</a> for establishing a Greater Israel. The idea was to use this tactic
against any neighboring nation that resisted Israeli hegemony. <br />
<br />
It is important to understand this point. Given the incestuous relationship between
Israel and US neocons, it is not surprising to see the Yinon strategy being used
in areas in which the US has chosen to intervene. In Iraq Biden is <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-biden-urges-unified-federal-and-democratic-iraq-to-abadi-barzani-2016-4">renewing
calls for the weak federal system</a> he <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/biden-us-would-help-iraq-pursue-federal-system-110282">first
proposed in 2014</a>. It is an idea that has been partially realized with the
increasingly autonomous status of the KRG, the Iraqi Kurdistan government. The divisions left in the wake of the Libya “debacle”
are another example of the same idea, only much messier. Libya was not
considered a failure by fans of this strategy. They did not care so much about
the chaos they left as about the fact that there was no longer a strong central
government to resist NATO plans for Libya and the region. In fact, in a chilling
prelude to the assault on Syria, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen enthusiastically
referred to the Libyan experience as “a teaching moment.”<br />
<br />
Despite mixed signals from the Obama administration since the cessation of
hostilities for the latest round of peace talks, there is reason to believe
that the President is serious about cutting his losses in Syria. As detailed in
the recent <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/">Atlantic
article by Jeffrey Goldberg</a>, he was never enthusiastic about attacking Syrian
forces directly in the aftermath of the <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line">false
flag sarin attack on Ghouta in 2013</a>. He <a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2013/09/is-obamas-call-for-vote-on-syria-kosher.html">dragged
his feet on acting despite his harsh rhetoric</a>, allowing saner voices to be
heard.<i> </i>In the Atlantic article, Obama
criticized all the major players in the continuing humanitarian crisis in
Syria; the Saudis, Erdogan, Netanyahu and the neocons who wrote the “playbook”
he says he is pressured to follow. Their game plan essentially calls for the
use of US military force against any nation that stands in the way of a global
corporate empire nominally led by America and its allies. The fact that Obama is so open about these politically
incorrect opinions at this point suggests that he may be trying to prepare us
for a shift in official US policy. <br />
<br />
The always-doubtful argument that intervention in Syria is motivated by humanitarian
concerns is wearing increasingly thin. Obama regards giving in to <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/clinton-promises-bomb-libya-calls-qaddafi-creature/">Clinton’s
pressure to attack Libya</a> as the “greatest mistake of (his) presidency.” If Obama wants out, Erdogan has few options
but to go along. The Saudis, increasingly on the defensive in the US propaganda
wars, are no doubt aware that they cannot challenge US will on their own, even
if their neocon allies remain on their side. If Obama tries to push a
diplomatic solution that leaves Assad in power and the “freedom fighting” al
Qaeda types stranded, the still-powerful neocons are sure to push back. If he
fails to act according to his realist principles, a Clinton presidency could be
disastrous because she is still pushing for a no-fly zone, which would require
a direct US assault on Syria’s air defenses.<br />
<br />
That’s why this is Obama’s Bay of Pigs moment. He can do the right thing and
try to limit the damage that American imperialists can do on his watch, or he
can submit to the pressure of an out-of-control military industrial complex for
a senseless and entirely avoidable war.Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-30994398113517220302016-04-06T13:38:00.001-07:002016-04-06T13:38:51.848-07:00A ROLLING STONE GATHERS MOSS-JANN WENNER ENDORSES CLINTON<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVbcJDgjF2V6_UjFkVU-J8VGHKWN9Bqde8W1AEzjNHX49GYKNjRhfavaJ4FLGS2cvU53w9Bsv_T-MI69P6tbp14dPIqGcweDjFZQ8dC414f4g75kBjbxLDZ73pkLtRqEH-2-Mm9w37rDY/s1600/Selling+out.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVbcJDgjF2V6_UjFkVU-J8VGHKWN9Bqde8W1AEzjNHX49GYKNjRhfavaJ4FLGS2cvU53w9Bsv_T-MI69P6tbp14dPIqGcweDjFZQ8dC414f4g75kBjbxLDZ73pkLtRqEH-2-Mm9w37rDY/s1600/Selling+out.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /><br /><br /><br />I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw the latest issue of Rolling Stone: The front page article was an <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/03/23/Rolling-Stone-endorses-Hillary-Clinton-over-Bernie-Sanders/6441458753951/">editorial by Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner endorsing Hillary Clinton</a>. Seriously. The magazine that inspired young Americans when they took to the streets for change in the 60s now calls for the election of a politician who epitomizes the Establishment. What does it say about our hopes of saving the US and the world from a hostile corporate takeover when the publisher who brought the world Hunter Thompson’s gonzo journalism can’t understand why the US needs a political revolution, or what Sanders means when he talks about it?<br /><br />God help us when the magazine that introduced most of us to Matt Taibbi is now calling for the election of Goldman Sachs’ BFF. This is perhaps the strongest evidence yet of the deflated ambition that Clinton support by rank-and-file Democrats represents. Ignoring the obvious conflicts of interest inherent in Wall Street financing of her candidacy, Wenner relies on fully discredited arguments to support her campaign against someone whose whole purpose for running is to challenge the corruption of a political system that is breaking down. Does he seriously believe that she will “get things done” by working for incremental change within the same corrupt system that has led America and the world to the brink of existential crisis?<br /><br />His most forceful argument regards climate change, an issue his young readers take much more seriously than those of their elders who back Clinton because of her putative support for less politically divisive issues such as the rights of women and children (she presumably favors puppies as well). It should be noted that despite the serious decline in Rolling Stone’s political reporting since the departure of Taibbi as a staff writer, it has managed to do a pretty good job covering the facts about global climate change. Where it has fallen woefully short is in its analysis of the politics of doing something about it.<br /><br />Rolling Stone articles have praised Obama’s largely symbolic challenges to the fossil fuel industry in areas where it is weakest, but have failed to call him out on the fact that he consistently avoids talking about the reality of what it will take to deal with climate change. Is that what he means when he says that Clinton will carry on his legacy? Sanders has called it our most important national security issue, while Clinton has consistently supported the expansion of fracking and wars to control fossil fuel sources in the Mideast. Despite this, the editorial argues that Clinton can do more to address climate change with an incremental approach than Sanders can do by demanding a serious response to what Wenner acknowledges is a planet-threatening emergency. Has his advanced age rendered him too senile to see the obvious contradiction?<br /><br />Wenner’s makes a couple of more or less original arguments in his editorial, both of which are equally fallacious:<br /><br />First, he accuses Sanders of substituting anger for a real plan, while making virtually no mention of Sanders’ detailed plans for dealing with the economy, tackling global climate change, reducing income inequality, improving health care and education and regulating Wall Street. Is it any wonder that Sanders is angry about the Democratic establishment’s unwillingness to tackle any of these problems effectively? The fact that Wenner cites Obamacare as a key “victory” shows that like many other Democrats, he has become so preoccupied with defending his party’s timidity against Republican stupidity that he fails to see that both have contributed to the imperiled state of the American middle class. Every other nation has a system of universal health care, yet Clinton claims it cannot be done here. If she is right, it is because Democratic acceptance of the corrupt status quo makes it impossible.<br /><br />Second, he compares Sanders to Nader as a “spoiler.” Not only does this perpetuate <a href="http://politizine.blogspot.com/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-nader-didnt-cost.html">the myth that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election,</a> but it ignores the obvious distinction between running in the general election when it might cause a more viable candidate to lose and running in a primary, where it is to everyone’s benefit that voters choose who shall represent them. Having muddled that point, he cites the devastating McGovern loss in 1968, in asserting that no matter how dire the circumstances, “America chooses its presidents from the middle” This is obviously false. It depends on how badly change is needed and how ready the country is for change. Has he forgotten that Roosevelt was considered a radical at one time? Given that Hillary’s supporters seem blithely unaware of the steady rightward drift of the party since Bill introduced the “third way,” they might be inclined to agree.<br /><br />Wenner’s endorsement dismisses all concerns about Clinton’s veracity as if they are too silly to merit rebuttal. This is typical of her supporters, who refuse to honestly examine her record for evidence of how it reflects on her character. Given the distortions of the corporate media about various false accusations in the past, it is perhaps understandable that he admirers overlook the fact that she <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/">lied about having illegally established a private email server</a> for government business, but shouldn’t it raise questions when she is caught lying about things for no apparent reason than to glorify herself, in Trump fashion? I have yet to see a Clinton supporter try to justify her claim that she landed under fire in Bosnia in 2008, when <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/25/hillary-clinton/video-shows-tarmac-welcome-no-snipers/">video shows she was welcomed by a ceremony rather than snipers</a>. She also claims to have <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/">spoken out against the Iraq War before Obama and to have been broke when she left the White House, among other demonstrably false statements</a>.<br /><br />Speaking of lies, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillarys-nafta-lie/">her claim to have opposed NAFTA has also been debunked</a> (by CBS, no less!). Not only does Wenner ignore this, but he justifies his support for her in part by describing as disingenuous Sanders’ argument that free trade policies were not responsible for the decline of the US auto industry. He fails to mention that while there may be other factors in that example, there is absolutely no doubt that free trade agreements that she has consistently supported <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-free-trade-and-the-loss-of-us-jobs/2014/01/14/894f5750-7d59-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html">have devastated American manufacturing</a>. And to add to her list of “disingenuous” claims, she now claims to oppose TPP, an agreement she was instrumental in negotiating.<br /><br />There is no sense repeating rebuttals to the claims of Clinton’s superior electability and her ability to work with a hostile Congress when those who don’t know refuse to listen. Let’s leave it at this: Wenner is channeling Ronald Reagan in arguing that while young people tend to have idealistic expectations, when they mature they become conservative. That is only a natural conclusion to those who have benefited from the system as it is and don’t want to admit that they have compromised all the values they held when a better world seemed possible. Like other baby boomers that support Clinton, Wenner seems to have grown too old to appreciate the dismal future facing our grandchildren. He should be ashamed to risk leaving them to it when we have a chance to spark a real revolution by electing someone willing to lead the fight to save the US and the world from the forces that Clinton represents.<br /><br />RIP, Rolling Stone. We hardly knew ya…apparently.Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-91615969232830857172016-03-11T16:12:00.000-08:002016-03-11T16:12:49.732-08:00IF YOU LIKE TRUMP, YOU'LL LOVE BERNIE<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM7FK7e3lrAVfrRYWbsDKjkP7Hr2eb_81LxGVwYoEboFJXuLfEiZVIGKA2Z4SH7-uAKltjcDwjq3hv_XH2B1xAgc0NFqEFu43M7TTYdep7VdxpMpXMMKatBbd2nG5BKXydAcftbn6jykI/s1600/Trump+and+Sanders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM7FK7e3lrAVfrRYWbsDKjkP7Hr2eb_81LxGVwYoEboFJXuLfEiZVIGKA2Z4SH7-uAKltjcDwjq3hv_XH2B1xAgc0NFqEFu43M7TTYdep7VdxpMpXMMKatBbd2nG5BKXydAcftbn6jykI/s1600/Trump+and+Sanders.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /><br /><br /><br />Sanders supporters are understandably excited by his surprise victory in
Michigan, but few take for granted that he will continue to build momentum for the
nomination. The corporate media and the DNC seem determined as ever to continue
promoting the myth that Clinton will be the inevitable Democratic candidate for
president. Despite the fact that her positions are largely out of step with the
Democratic mainstream, the rationalizations for voting for her remain persuasive
for a large proportion of the party faithful.
Bernie will need to take advantage of every opportunity to tap into that
segment of the electorate hungry for change.
While it may seem counterintuitive, Trump supporters may provide the
margin he needs for victory.<br />
<br />
The consensus opinion on the left is that Trump’s appeal is based on his racist
positions on immigration and his Islamophobia, both of which attract the most
extreme right wingers who disproportionately support Trump. However, James
Robertson offers a <a href="http://socialistworker.org/2016/03/09/trumpism-and-socialist-strategy">persuasive
argument</a> that that is not the case. He concludes that Trump’s base is
composed of a wide spectrum of conservative voters who are tired of being taken
for granted by the lies of the corporate politicians who comprise the
establishment of the Republican Party. His powerful argument explains why Trump
continues to build support despite his wildly inconsistent views, many of which
contradict conservative dogma. <br />
<br />
If Robertson’s thesis is correct, it suggests that Sanders and his supporters
have a unique opportunity to forge an alliance between left and right. With the
right approach, they could unite moderate dissidents across the political
spectrum around issues of common concern. While the idea will strike many as
far-fetched, it has also been suggested by at least one conservative blogger
who makes <a href="https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.hre6579wf">a
strong argument for it</a>. In addition,
as Sanders pointed out in the FOX debate, he was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont,_2012">reelected
by a nearly 3:1 margin in 2012</a> in the most rural state in the union. While
Vermont is exceptionally liberal for a rural, largely white population, <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/new-vermont-is-liberal-but-old-vermont-is-still-there/">it
still has a significant proportion of conservatives</a>.<br />
<br />
While it remains to be seen how many conservatives would be willing to register
Democratic in the primaries in order to vote for Sanders over Clinton, there is
no doubt this is a demographic that Sanders would want on his side in the
general election. The more successful a primary effort to sway conservatives
who are developing doubts about Trump, the stronger will be the argument that
Sanders is the best candidate to prevail in the general election, despite the
assumption by many that his self-identification as a “socialist” will doom him.<br />
<br />
It would be naïve to think this will be an easy task. The corporate media
remains a powerful force to reckon with. However, the more that Sanders and
Trump defy its predictions the clearer it will be that Americans will need to
tune out the echo chamber and learn to think for themselves. Should they face
off in the general election, they will present the clearest choice of what kind
of nation we want to be since the “Second Revolution” in 1800, when Jefferson
defeated Adams on the promise that ours would not be a government that dictated
to the people, but one that responded to the popular will. <br />
<br />
Our goal as Americans should not be to assure that one or the other of the
Duopoly parties wins, but to elect a president who can best address our common
problems. We are at risk of leaving the next generation of Americans to be the
first to have a lower standard of living than their parents. Fortunately, the
media is performing at least one useful function that could help us change the
tide by electing a champion of the People: It is informing the Trump supporters
about why it would be so dangerous to elect a megalomaniac with no experience
in politics and little understanding of how to do anything but appeal to the
anger of his base. It is up to us to make them understand that they have an
alternative in an independent who shares their anger at the corrupt Duopoly establishment.<br />
<br />
The key is to do what Sanders supporters have largely failed to do in trying to
convince Clinton supporters to adopt their point of view, which is to treat
their differences of opinion with respect.
That is not as hard as it seems. We are used to having these discussions
with others who consider themselves liberals and many of us have been shocked
at the anger that greets any criticism of the anointed heir to the Obama
presidency. It really shouldn’t be surprising that normally rational people get
upset when people who agree on goals agree acknowledge what seems obvious to
them: we cannot continue to accept the choice of corporate politicians in the
DNC and expect to ever achieve the goals of the progressive agenda. There is a simple reason that we need a
political revolution, but for some reason the message is not sinking in with
many of the Democratic Party faithful in the baby boomer generation. To
paraphrase Bill Clinton’s campaign slogan, “It’s the corruption, stupid!” That
is a non-ideological message progressives should be able to sell to
conservatives.<br />
<br />
It’s easier to be patient when you go into a discussion expecting disagreement,
as long as you do not fall into the trap of expecting the other person to be
convinced on the spot. It’s a matter of planting the seeds and letting them
mature in an environment that is becoming increasingly hostile to both Trump’s
extremism and Clinton’s cynical corporatism. Only the most dedicated Clintonite
would argue that it is naively idealistic to worry about it the corruption of
the system. It is certainly not an attitude we are likely to get from Trump
supporters. We can expect wide agreement on this fundamental issue from
conservatives who have recognized that politicians claiming to represent them
are lying. <br />
<br />
We are witnessing the fracturing of the façade of the Duopoly in the face of
its glaring hypocrisy. The success of Sanders and Trump in their respective
races has challenged the complacency of the corporate core of both major
parties. This is a moment of historic opportunity to not only unify the left
around a progressive agenda, but to gain support for it from many
self-identified conservatives. Doubters should remember that there is
historical precedent for this. Roosevelt was elected after a period of
Republican dominance that led to the Great Depression. It was that economic
pain that led Americans to challenge the simplistic beliefs they had bought into
by Republican corporatists during the relative prosperity of the 20s. In the
midst of our ongoing Great Recession, we should be able to do the same.
Stripped of ideological rhetoric, Sanders’ platform is a common sense approach
to getting America back on its feet.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]-->Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-90962380952815358762016-03-05T12:27:00.000-08:002016-03-06T12:07:55.122-08:00NATIONAL AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS OF CLINTON’S RECORD ON FREE TRADE<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfQdXrU_OJSE0T1QCrIbD1_4gO8xDZ1MZ4L4T87wm8EOwNW-zjLxLqlPc1SAX04xKWWhQx2blu6Rh7xmWNkvPacEeUBiIAqWiqTT8uHCZbc4fE5-3qQWBcSr7cPRaNs5G5y-Xl5el0N7M/s1600/No+fast+track+rally+Coos+Bay.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfQdXrU_OJSE0T1QCrIbD1_4gO8xDZ1MZ4L4T87wm8EOwNW-zjLxLqlPc1SAX04xKWWhQx2blu6Rh7xmWNkvPacEeUBiIAqWiqTT8uHCZbc4fE5-3qQWBcSr7cPRaNs5G5y-Xl5el0N7M/s320/No+fast+track+rally+Coos+Bay.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Given the extraordinary importance of challenging the three major free “trade” agreements currently being considered, it is remarkable that Democrats have spent so little time discussing the differences between Clinton and Sanders on the issue. While it is perfectly understandable that the corporate media would continue to ignore the <a href="http://www.alliancesud.ch/en/policy/trade/ttip-tisa-and-ttp-2013-world-trade-revolution">explosive consequences of TPP, TTIP and TISA,</a> it is concerning that more attention has not been paid by voters who would be affected by the massive transfer of government power to transnational corporations.<br />
<br />
For those who need reminding, the issues involve preserving national sovereignty, protecting internet freedom, allowing governments to control the devastating consequences of reckless financial chicanery by Wall Street, preventing the pharmaceutical industry from gaining even more power to rip off governments and consumers, promoting the interests of Monsanto and other powerful corporations, and much more.<br />
<br />
The media blockade of information about the negative consequences of free trade has resulted in most Americans being ignorant of the consequences of the neoliberal philosophy of free trade. These policies have been championed by the Clintons and Obama and staunchly opposed by Sanders, highlighting the difference in their priorities. Establishment Democrats show allegiance to the transnational corporations that dump money into their campaign coffers, while progressives like Sanders are fighting to hold the line against increasing corporate power over governments and the people they are supposed to represent.<br />
<br />
Clinton’s <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp-2015-10">shifts of position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership</a> are particularly revealing. After playing a pivotal role in negotiating the secret trade agreement, she began to express doubt about it around the time it became obvious she preparing to announce her run for the presidency. For months, she refused to take a firm position on the issue. Then, in an turnaround that surprised many (but shouldn’t have), she stated that she opposed the final product. Seemingly learning for the first time that it contained no real protections for American workers from the job losses that all free trade agreements produce, she disavowed her own work. Some think that it was no coincidence that she had this change of heart after Sanders had been quite vocal in his opposition to the increasingly unpopular agreement, as were unions.<br />
<br />
For those whose memories are longer than the latest news cycle, this should have come as no shock. Although <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp-2015-10">she claims she has always opposed NAFTA</a>, her contention is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillarys-nafta-lie/">demonstrably false.</a> She very publicly promoted it when it was being sold to America in 1993, over the strenuous objections of labor and environmentalists. Her supporters also seem to have forgotten that she insisted during her 2008 presidential run that NAFTA had to be renegotiated. Although he proved to be a strong free trade advocate himself, Obama jumped on her inconsistency at the time. Her apologists say it is unfair to criticize her for what happened during her husband's administration. They fail to acknowledge that she launched her political career as “co-President." Thia was the main qualification she had to run as a carpet bagging Senator from New York. Whether she really privately expressed reservations about NAFTA prior to its passage is irrelevant. She clearly had her eyes set on a political career at the time, and was under no obligation to actively promote a policy she opposed. That is practically the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.<br />
<br />
Clinton’s claim that she was suddenly persuaded to oppose TPP because of failures that were evident in the agreement as she was helping to negotiate may seem disingenuous, but it would seem to be buttressed by her vote against the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. I say it would “seem” so because <a href="http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/03/02/hillary-clinton-caught-lying-to-voters-on-trade-deal/">recently released emails indicate that she was privately lobbying for the agreement</a> even while publicly opposing it. <br /><br />One of the main objections to CAFTA, in addition to its typical lack of protections against job losses and environmental degradation, was the fact that union organizers in Columbia were being systematically murdered by right wing paramilitaries who <a href="http://killercoke.org/crimes_colombia.php">appear to have been funded by the virulently anti-union Coca-Cola</a> corporation. No problem for Clinton. She just claimed that the problem was improving, even though <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-eisenbrey/colombias-antiunion-viole_b_820629.html">the number of murders the year before its passage was near record highs. </a><br />
<br />
Her blatant disregard for the lives of Central American workers mirrors her lack of concern for the lives of <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/the-clinton-backed-honduran-regime-is-picking-off-indigenous-leaders/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New+Campaign&utm_term=daily">Hondurans murdered by a coup government she supports</a> or their children, who are sent north unaccompanied by desperate parents hoping to spare them the violence that now plagues the nation. Her position on what to do about the flood of refugees from the violence of right wing US-backed governments in Central America is clear: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/hillary-clinton-immigration_n_5507630.html">Send them back</a>.<br />
<br />
The Battle in Seattle against the WTO in 1999 gave hope to millions of people who understood the significance of the increasing power of transnational corporations over government. It was considered to be the opening shot in a war to defeat the neoliberal movement that was gaining unprecedented power during the Clinton co-presidency. Unfortunately, corporate power brokers upon which the Democratic Party establishment have allowed themselves to become dependent are better funded and organized. They are winning the war to establish <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZklPnVs-Y">David Rockefeller’s dream of a one-world corporate government</a>, where nations would become an anachronism. Using their power over the mainstream media, they have hidden this reality from most Americans, even as they do it in plain sight.<br />
<br />
The time to redouble the fight against neoliberalism is now. With a vote on TPP looming and the potential for worse to come, we can use the fact that both candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination and the leading Republican contender are on record as opposing TPP to rally opposition. We have to keep in mind though that only one of them has actually been in the front lines of this fight before now.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-33808124818019000262016-02-27T14:25:00.000-08:002016-02-27T14:25:37.201-08:00WHICH WAY TO THE REVOLUTION?<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9ZxP5ZMkXtHbqNATOlTmx9sYHoR5xXS4xrDWIYJCmrtrymOnnYtvh_FWERcAmJOp7AHHWA6tG5XFGqvYsO2u2XDnhJh6i9i-Ot71uv6iHx1K2_yICoZU8on8hpUVfK2ixaELjbFG3h4Y/s1600/Ready+for+revolution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9ZxP5ZMkXtHbqNATOlTmx9sYHoR5xXS4xrDWIYJCmrtrymOnnYtvh_FWERcAmJOp7AHHWA6tG5XFGqvYsO2u2XDnhJh6i9i-Ot71uv6iHx1K2_yICoZU8on8hpUVfK2ixaELjbFG3h4Y/s320/Ready+for+revolution.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /><br /><br /><br />It’s fascinating to follow the discussion about the “Sanders revolution,” a vague
phrase that lends itself to a variety of interpretations. Depending on your
point of view, the term may be one of hope or derision. For others, it just
provokes blank stares. <br />
<br />
The idea of a political revolution inspires those who can see that today’s Democratic
Party is the captive of a system in which special interest money finances increasingly
expensive campaigns. In the post-Citizens United era, these people recognize
the historic significance of a candidate making a serious run for President
without the backing of corporations or wealthy individuals, and despite the
efforts of well-connected party leaders aghast that he is challenging one of
their own. Beyond setting an example of how to beat this corrupt system, Sanders
is out to change it. <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bernie-Sanders-Says-He-Wou-by-Ralph-Lopez-Bernie-Sanders_Bernie-Sanders_Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Bernie-Sanders-Presidential-Campaign-160226-43.html">He
is increasingly making campaign finance reform a centerpiece of his campaign.</a>
To many of his supporters, the “revolution” is defined as <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sanders-vs-Clinton-Revolu-by-Rick-Staggenborg--Civil-Discourse_Civil-War_Corruption_Establishment-160222-509.html#comment585176">ending
a system where the wealthy determine who are viable candidates</a> to
ostensibly represent us, while at the same time protecting their interests.<br />
<br />
Those who see the need to address the corrupting influence of money in politics
find it hard to understand Democrats who can’t grasp why this prospect is
causing such excitement. Party stalwarts are puzzled by the backlash against “the
Establishment,” a term most Sanders supporters consider a euphemism for “corporatists.”
In their frustration at what appears to be willful ignorance, they lash out at
those who they should be trying to convince. Fortunately, Sanders’ popularity
continues to increase with the exposure that the corporate media can no longer
deny him. We will soon know if his momentum will continue to build fast enough
to carry him past Super Tuesday. But even if it does not, the “revolution” must
continue. <br />
<br />
Critics of Sanders on the left argue that his campaign will actually undermine
progress toward more lofty goals, such as ending capitalism. Most commonly, this view holds that as long as
people support Democratic candidates there is no hope for changing the system
of which both major parties are part. Since Bernie has chosen to run as a
Democrat and to throw his support to Clinton should he not get the nomination,
so this reasoning goes, it is a no-win proposition. They then point out with
what often seems like grim satisfaction, “How will people ever realize that the
Duopoly is part of the problem?” <br />
<br />
While they have a valid argument, they offer no reasonable alternatives. Voting
for either of the corporate-captured parties is a sham? To some extent that is
true, but what do we do about it? Third
parties are not viable, and given the state of leftist politics they will not
become so before global climate change renders the point moot. Mass civil disobedience?
In a country where the leading contender for the Presidency is the multimillionaire
wife of a former President? Get real.<br />
<br />
The naivete of these arguments is matched only by the arrogance of those of their
proponents who call Sanders supporters naïve. The smug self-assurance of these
self-styled radicals masks a deep cynicism that prevents them from seeing how
the Sanders campaign might actually aid their cause. Those who scorn the idea
that he is the vanguard of a revolution in any meaningful sense of the term don’t
seem willing to consider how his campaign can advance the cause of a more expansive
transformation of the political system. In time-honored leftist tradition, they
are busy forming a circular firing squad to attack the Sanders campaign from a
position opposite that of Clinton backers who are also trying to shoot it down.
<br />
<br />
Those critics who are serious about to build a movement for what they consider genuine
revolution might want to consider the effect of dismissing millions of people
who are at least aware of the need for a dramatic change. It is irrelevant that
many may not fully comprehend what that means. It is impossible to create a
mass movement if you expect everyone to agree with you. Differences are bound
to arise and inflexibility causes schisms, destroying the solidarity on which
any movement depends. It is elementary strategic thinking to consider how to
work together where possible to achieve agreed upon objectives, even when there
is disagreement on strategy or ultimate goals. How in the world can anyone expect a mass
uprising of a population so steeped in the current system that half of those
who consider themselves “progressive” would consider voting for a candidate
backed by the finance industry, apparently believing her claims to be its sworn
enemy?<br />
<br />
It is hard to see how anyone can argue with the idea that addressing the
corrupting influence of money in politics is a good way to organize a movement.
How many Americans would disagree with the notion that government doesn’t work
because those in power put the interests of the 1% over those of the rest of
us? The idea is so elementary that when Adbusters first wrote about Occupy, the
idea of a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance was the single
action item they suggested. Occupying Wall Street symbolized that the ultimate
power behind that money was the banking and finance industry that nearly
destroyed the economy (or is in the process of doing so) and with it, the middle
class (not to mention the poor). With a well-defined enemy and a clear
objective, the movement had a chance to become much more than a symbolic
protest, The problem was that Occupy activists refused to prioritize goals,
making strategic political action impossible.<br />
<br />
Campaign finance reform is not the answer to all our problems, but it is the
first step to finding one. If Sanders were to make this point clear, he might
just convert a few skeptics. So far, he has focused on a promise to vet any
candidates to the Supreme Court according to their willingness to overturn Citizens
United. While laudable, Clinton has made the same promise. Despite the fact
that this is yet another example of a promise to work on an issue she has
avoided in the past and the fact that she depends on the system she now vows to
destroy, her supporters trust her to keep it. That’s why Sanders should also be
talking about <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/21/bernie-sanders-files-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united.html">his
proposed constitutional amendment</a> intended to end the doctrine that money spent
to influence elections is protected speech. <br />
<br />
The key to using this to build a movement is that as President, he could
promote the idea of <a href="https://movetoamend.org/pledge-amend">voting only
for candidates who would support such an amendment</a>, as suggested by Move to
Amend, as well as other reforms like the <a href="http://anticorruptionact.org/">American
Anti-Corruption Act</a>. For those unfamiliar with the latter, it would address
a variety of other ways that special interest money can influence politics, including
putting limits on lobbying to include closing the revolving door (or at least
significantly narrowing it). Keeping the need to address the corruption of the
system in the forefront of American consciousness cannot but help the effort to
get Americans to sustain pressure on Congress to put the needs of people over
profit. The only way to advance any aspect of the progressive agenda is to
first address the corruption that has created the problems in the first place. <br />
<br />
The Sanders “revolution” is just the first phase of the kind of fundamental
change in American politics that can put us back on the path toward true
representative democracy. How far we go will be up to us.Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1668673016542952057.post-28164373646253265202016-02-20T21:12:00.000-08:002016-02-24T13:31:47.716-08:00SANDERS V CLINTON: REVOLUTION OR CIVIL WAR?<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIvJyGZUT8aHi_5vl3Sn4bt21wemti0otq6t2_Howa4XG172F9UcJFdp6l7gRhd293Iojie_196k4o_LCZNxL51nE-8VNXoOcEN7Wj6H2wX6QZxF7AxmrpQPg6FqvaY1HZWFe1u2J4TBY/s1600/Democracy+for+sale.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIvJyGZUT8aHi_5vl3Sn4bt21wemti0otq6t2_Howa4XG172F9UcJFdp6l7gRhd293Iojie_196k4o_LCZNxL51nE-8VNXoOcEN7Wj6H2wX6QZxF7AxmrpQPg6FqvaY1HZWFe1u2J4TBY/s1600/Democracy+for+sale.jpg" /></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
It would have been amusing if the stakes weren’t so deadly serious: The New
York Times described Clinton’s narrow victory in Nevada as reassuring “an
anxious Democratic Party” that she could still win the nomination despite
Sanders’ surging poll numbers. While not quite saying so, the implication seemed
to be that the Democratic Party doesn’t include the insurgents who support
Sanders. This is a subtle indication of the obvious: there is a civil war going
on in the Democratic Party, and the corporate media has sided with the
Democratic establishment. In order to end this civil war, Sanders supporters
must convince Democrats leaning toward Clinton to join them in a revolution
against corporate rule.<br />
<br />
While the candidates have confined themselves to occasional heated exchanges, most
of the fighting has been going on in the alternative media, letters to the editor
sections of newspapers, and social media. In the latter, the arguments are
getting increasingly vicious. Sanders supporters are getting frustrated by what
they see as the blindness of Clinton supporters to the need for "political
revolution," whatever that means to them. While Sanders has never precisely
defined the term, the context in which he refers to it suggests that it means
creating a system where money does not determine who voters will get a chance
to choose from to represent them.<br />
<br />
If we accept this as the definition of the term, then the question becomes one
of whether the millions of Clinton admirers are willing to give up the dream of
helping elect the first female President in order to pursue what many consider
a quixotic quest: addressing the corrupting influence of money in politics. Is
that really a naïve idea? Sanders supporters who expect more from his election
than just populist rhetoric do not think so. Although he has not made the point
clearly on the campaign trail, Sanders doesn’t just think that overturning
Citizens United is just a good idea: He has been actively working on it for
years. Furthermore, he has very specific ideas about how to do it. Not only would match Clinton’s promise to use
a judge’s willingness to reverse the decision as a litmus test for Supreme
Court appointment, he has already been attacking it with a more direct
approach. <br />
<br />
Sanders has introduced resolutions for constitutional amendments to effect campaign
finance reform in each of the last three Congresses, <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/21/bernie-sanders-files-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united.html">the
most recent one just last month</a>. His strategy is not just overturn Citizens
United, but the whole series of decisions that began when money used to influence
political campaigns was declared protected “speech” in <a href="http://uscivilliberties.org/cases/3259-buckley-v-valeo-424-us-1-1976.html">Buckley
v Vallejo</a> in 1976. Although the effort to pass a strong constitutional
amendment has lost some momentum after the initial success of Move to Amend and
other groups, the movement has not gone away. He could give it new life.<br />
<br />
As a senator, his ability to advance the idea was limited by how much attention his
efforts received, including in the “alternative” media. Now that Sanders is highlighting
campaign finance reform in front of a national audience, the issue could form
the nucleus around which to build a real movement, one that could unite not
only Democrats but all Americans.
Regardless of political ideology, only the terminally naïve doubt
that it is the corruption of politics by
special interest money that has frustrated efforts to effectively deal with
almost every problem whose solution might affect corporate profits. As
President, Sanders would be in a position to lead the effort to pass an
amendment, using the power of the movement that he has begun to mobilize. <br />
<br />
The theme of the Sanders campaign has been addressing corruption. He has returned again
and again to the issue of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and
particularly in elections. Although it was a point lost on most of her
supporters, his pointing out in their last televised debate that Wall Street is
a big Clinton backer was not an accusation of corruption. Deftly ignoring the distinction, she played
for sympathy by accusing Sanders of “smearing” her. The problem is that it is
not possible to “smear” someone by pointing out relevant facts. <br />
<br />
The sources of Clinton’s campaign funds are largely known, and she did not
challenge the fact that she has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in
speaking fees from Goldman Sachs alone. Sanders was too polite to mention that in
total, she has received millions from Wall Street institutions and the
industries in which they are most heavily invested (among these are the
corporations that comprise the medical-industrial complex, raising questions about
<a href="http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2016/02/the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-to-defeat.html">what
makes her so sure that single payer will never come to the US</a> even though
it has been proven to work everywhere it has been tried around the world). As
Sanders pointed out in frustration, it is hard to imagine why those who benefit
from Washington’s corporate-centered policies would be throwing so much money
at someone who calls herself their “greatest enemy” unless they understood that
such threats are not to be taken seriously.<br />
<br />
If Clinton is serious when she agrees with Sanders that Citizens United should
be overturned, she should understand the importance of the fact that he is
running without the benefit of SuperPAC backing or that of wealthy and
well-connected establishment Democrats. It is important to remember that the Supreme Court decision to remove the
floodgates of corporate cash was based on the assumption that it did not “create
corruption or an appearance of corruption.” So if we were to take her objection
seriously, shouldn’t we be concerned about at least the appearance of
corruption when her campaign is primarily funded by wealthy donors and corporations?<br />
<br />
To repeat: pointing out that Clinton is very deeply enmeshed in a corrupt
system is not the same as calling her corrupt.
As she points out, so are almost all other politicians. Impugning her
character on this basis is a sure way to encourage her admirers to defend her
against more valid criticisms. A far more
effective way to persuade them to back Sanders is to focus on the potential
benefits of a Sanders win: It would prove that we don’t need to accept the
candidates that the economic elite offer. As president, Sanders can take the lead in promoting reforms like the <a href="http://anticorruptionact.org/">American Anti-Corruption
Act</a> and <a href="https://movetoamend.org/pledge-amend">making a constitutional amendment a litmus test</a> in every congressional election until we have a Congress that
puts our interests over those of the billionaire backers of the current crop. <br />
<br />
That’s a pretty revolutionary idea. <o:p></o:p></div>
Rick Staggenborg, MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16587630200799702811noreply@blogger.com0