January 14 and 15, 2017


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polish-govt-welcomes-u-s-troops-says-we-waited-for-decades/

Polish gov't welcomes U.S. troops; defense chief says "we waited for decades"
CBS/AP
January 14, 2017, 4:12 PM

Photograph -- U.S. and Polish army soldiers attend an official welcoming ceremony for U.S. troops deployed to Poland as part of NATO build-up in Eastern Europe in Zagan, Poland, Jan. 14, 2017. REUTERS/KACPER PEMPEL
Play VIDEO -- Russia responds to U.S. troops in Poland, Trump intel claims
Photograph -- poland.jpg, U.S. Army soldiers and local women pose for a picture after the official welcoming ceremony for U.S. troops deployed to Poland as part of NATO build-up in Eastern Europe in Zagan, Poland, Jan. 14, 2017. REUTERS/KACPER PEMPEL
Play VIDEO -- U.S. military ups presence in Europe for first time since Cold War




WARSAW, Poland -- Polish leaders welcomed U.S. troops to their country Saturday, with the defense minister expressing gratitude for their arrival and calling it the fulfillment of a dream Poles have had for decades.

The ceremony in the western Polish town of Zagan comes some 23 years after the last Soviet troops left Poland. It marks a new historic moment -- the first time Western forces are being deployed on a continuous basis to NATO’s eastern flank. The move has infuriated Moscow.

“We have waited for you for a very long time,” Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz told the troops as snow fell. “We waited for decades, sometimes feeling we had been left alone, sometimes almost losing hope, sometimes feeling that we were the only one who protected civilization from aggression that came from the east.”

The American deployment includes an armored brigade of 3,500 American troops from Fort Carson, Colorado. It comes in reaction to Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and its backing of separatist insurgents in Ukraine’s east.

Those actions have frightened many in Poland, the Baltic states and other countries in Eastern Europe that were once under Moscow’s control. CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported that the display of military might is meant, in large part, to reassure America’s nervous allies in Europe that the U.S. military will be there -- standing with them -- against any Russian aggression.

The Polish government organized several other events across the country, including in downtown Warsaw, to welcome the Americans.

“This is an important day for Poland, for Europe, for our common defense,” Prime Minister Beata Szydlo said.

The troops are due to fan out across seven countries from Estonia to Bulgaria for exercises. A headquarters unit will be stationed in Germany. After nine months they will be replaced by another unit.

President-elect Donald Trump could reverse the moves, but CBS News’ Palmer reported that would take months, or even years.

NATO will also deploy four multinational battalions to its eastern flank later this year, one each to Poland and the three Baltic states. The U.S. will also lead one of those battalions.

The deployment of American troops appears to have provoked Russia.

“We perceive it as a threat,” President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. “These actions threaten our interests, our security.”

“Especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders,” Peskov said in a conference call with reporters. “It’s not even a European state.”

The Kremlin denounced all the deployments, and Putin said it’s “stupid and unrealistic” to think that Russia would attack anyone.


YEAH, RIGHT!! I REALLY DO TRUST PUTIN TO PLAY FAIR WITH EVERYONE. I AM DELIGHTED TO SEE THE SIZABLE NUMBER OF US TANKS MOVED INTO POLAND. NO I DON’T WANT TO SEE WAR, BUT WITH A CERTAIN KIND OF ADVERSARY, HAVING THE TANKS THERE HELPS KEEP THEM HONEST, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.



TWO BIG PHARMA STORIES: MULTIPLE CHOICE – IS IT INTIMIDATION, “MO MONEY”, A BASIC LACK OF COMMITMENT BY DEMS, OR ALL OF THE ABOVE?

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/01/12/big-pharma-backed-dems-join-gop-block-sanders-effort-end-drug-price-gouging

Published on Thursday, January 12, 2017
By Common Dreams
Big Pharma-Backed Dems Join GOP to Block Sanders Effort to End Drug Price Gouging
byLauren McCauley, staff writer

Photograph -- Introducing the amendment on Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders asked his senate colleagues if they "have the guts finally to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists and their campaign contributions and fight for the American consumer?" (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI)
Introducing the amendment on Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders asked his senate colleagues if they "have the guts finally to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists and their campaign contributions and fight for the American consumer?" (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI)
Introducing the amendment on Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders asked his senate colleagues if they "have the guts finally to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists and their campaign contributions and fight for the American consumer?" (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI)


While the Republican Party is publicly dismantling millions of Americans' health safety net, more than a dozen Democrats late Wednesday quietly threw their weight behind Big Pharma and voted down an amendment that would have allowed pharmacists to import identical—but much less expensive—drugs from Canada and other countries.

The "power and wealth of the pharmaceutical industry and their 1,300 lobbyists and unlimited sums of money have bought the United States Congress," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declared in a speech on the Senate floor while introducing the amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), which would have been attached to the chamber's budget resolution. It came amid a flurry of legislative activity during Wednesday evening's "vote-a-rama."

"Year after year the same old takes place: the pharmaceutical industry makes more and more money and the American people pay higher ad [sic] higher prices," Sanders continued, asking his colleagues if they "have the guts finally to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists and their campaign contributions and fight for the American consumer?"

It turns out, no.

In fact, 13 Democrats voted against the measure (roll call here), siding with the Republican majority and drawing sharp rebuke from observers, who pointed out that many who voted "no" receive substantial contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

Many were particularly dismayed that Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) had sided with Big Pharma after winning liberal praise for his unprecedented testimony against Attorney General nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Notably, 12 Republicans and two Independents, including Sanders, voted for the measure.

Seventy-two percent of Americans support such a rule, according to Sanders, who noted that the price differences between the U.S. and Canada are "dramatic."

"EpiPen, for example, costs more than $600 in the United States compared to $290 in Canada for the exact same allergy treatment," a press statement from Sanders' office observed. "A popular drug for high cholesterol, Crestor, costs $730 in the U.S. but $160 across the northern border. Abilify, a drug to treat depression, is more than $2,636 for a 90-day supply in the U.S. but only $436 in Canada."

Sanders' attempt to attach such a provision to the 21st Century Cures Act last month was similarly blocked.

Should the import rule have passed, it would have been a step towards ending "the epidemic of price gouging," Sanders said, which has become a hot-button issue for many Americans who are unable to afford their prescription drugs—a point the former presidential candidate hammered home on Twitter ahead of the vote.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License



http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/13/bernie-sanders-pharma-bill-vote-reveals-new-battle-lines-commentary.html

Why Big Pharma should be afraid. Very afraid
Jake Novak | @jakejakeny
Friday, 13 Jan 2017 | 1:24 PM ET

Photograph -- Getty Images, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Photograph -- Getty Images -- Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Bernie Sanders is upset. But after a fascinating vote in the U.S. Senate Wednesday night, it's Big Pharma that should be upset. In fact Big Pharma should be afraid. Because for the second time this week it's becoming obvious its iron wall of protection in Washington is starting to crumble.

On the surface, the drug companies won a battle against Senator Bernie Sanders as his bill to allow pharmaceutical distributors and pharmacists to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and other countries lost by a narrow 52-46 vote. And Sanders is fuming at the 13 Democratic Senators who essentially killed the bill by voting against it.

But first impressions can be deceiving. The bigger news is that 12 Republicans joined the Sanders forces and voted in favor of his bill. Suddenly, the battle lines in the pharma wars are shifting. They didn't shift in time to get this cheaper drug importation bill passed, but that measure was small potatoes anyway. The stakes will be much higher in the coming months, and the anti-pharma armies are getting stronger.

Just look at some of the names of the key GOP Senators with seniority or national renown as conservatives who voted in favor: Ted Cruz, (yes THAT Ted Cruz), Charles Grassley, John Thune, John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Mike Lee. And note well that the newest Republican Senator, John Kennedy from Louisiana, also joined in favor. More on Kennedy, and why his vote was especially telling in a moment.

But first, it's hard to discount the importance of seeing Senators like Cruz and Thune join in on a bill clearly meant to send a message to the drug industry. This is very much the result of more and more bi-partisan opposition to exploding prescription drug prices in individual cases like Mylan's EpiPen last year and the Martin Shkreli-induced 50-fold increase for a life-saving drug called Daraprim in 2015. And while Democrats and Republicans joined in the drug company-bashing and drug company CEO-bashing in response to those incidents during Senate hearings, actually standing up and being counted in a vote meant to warn the entire drug industry is more significant.

Of course, this is not just a result of the EpiPen costs and Martin Shkreli. This new party-line crossing trend has a lot to do with the new sheriff coming to the White House next week. President-elect Donald Trump sent drug sector stocks into a tailspin earlier this week when he made a special point of calling out the drug companies for "getting away with murder" in their pricing power.

The fact that he made that statement the very morning before the Sanders bill vote in the Senate is significant and it's likely it may have influenced a few Republican Senators who had been on the fence. And, getting back to the freshman Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, it was probably not lost on the man who received the most personal campaign support from Trump in 2016 that the incoming president and his most important political benefactor decided to hit Big Pharma so prominently that same day.

This drug pricing war is indeed producing very different battle lines. So let's also look at the names of some of the 13 Democrats who opposed Sanders' plan, because those names are also very telling. Democrats like Corey Booker and Bob Menendez, both from Big Pharma's major U.S. headquarters state of New Jersey, voted "nay." The drug industry's major presence in states like Delaware and Pennsylvania also seems to have played a roll in getting the two Democratic Senators from Delaware and the one Democrat from Pennsylvania to vote no as well. And so did Democrat Patty Murray from Washington, who is one of the biggest recipients of pharma company donations with almost $300,000 for her re-election campaign last year alone.

"It's becoming obvious (Big Pharma's) iron wall of protection in Washington is starting to crumble."

Despite those Democratic Party defections from the progressive base on this vote, there's not going to be enough campaign money and corporate headquarter arrangements in blue states to overcome the tide that's turning against the drug industry right now. With that 52-46 tally, all the forces against Big Pharma's current pricing power need is four more votes and a little more time to finish what they started Wednesday night. A few more tweets or phone calls from Trump ought to do the trick, especially if his message is backed up by people like Senator Cruz along with Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Well, we all said we wanted more bipartisanship in Washington. Or at least we wanted more issues to be free of the predictable party line dichotomy every time. It turns out what did the trick wasn't so much an issue or an entity to support, but a punching bag. By relying too much on lobbyists and political donations, Big Pharma walked right into that trap. And the incoming president and a surprising number of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are winding up to deliver a big blow.

The fact that he made that statement the very morning before the Sanders bill vote in the Senate is significant and it's likely it may have influenced a few Republican Senators who had been on the fence. And, getting back to the freshman Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, it was probably not lost on the man who received the most personal campaign support from Trump in 2016 that the incoming president and his most important political benefactor decided to hit Big Pharma so prominently that same day.

This drug pricing war is indeed producing very different battle lines. So let's also look at the names of some of the 13 Democrats who opposed Sanders' plan, because those names are also very telling. Democrats like Corey Booker and Bob Menendez, both from Big Pharma's major U.S. headquarters state of New Jersey, voted "nay." The drug industry's major presence in states like Delaware and Pennsylvania also seems to have played a roll in getting the two Democratic Senators from Delaware and the one Democrat from Pennsylvania to vote no as well. And so did Democrat Patty Murray from Washington, who is one of the biggest recipients of pharma company donations with almost $300,000 for her re-election campaign last year alone.

Despite those Democratic Party defections from the progressive base on this vote, there's not going to be enough campaign money and corporate headquarter arrangements in blue states to overcome the tide that's turning against the drug industry right now. With that 52-46 tally, all the forces against Big Pharma's current pricing power need is four more votes and a little more time to finish what they started Wednesday night. A few more tweets or phone calls from Trump ought to do the trick, especially if his message is backed up by people like Senator Cruz along with Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Well, we all said we wanted more bipartisanship in Washington. Or at least we wanted more issues to be free of the predictable party line dichotomy every time. It turns out what did the trick wasn't so much an issue or an entity to support, but a punching bag. By relying too much on lobbyists and political donations, Big Pharma walked right into that trap. And the incoming president and a surprising number of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are winding up to deliver a big blow.

Commentary by Jake Novak, CNBC.com senior columnist. Follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.



THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE NEEDED FOR 30 YEARS OR MORE SINCE REAGAN. “THE NATIVES” ARE GETTING RESTLESS! TRUMP MAY STAY IN OFFICE, BUT HE ISN’T GOING TO BE A HAPPY MAN.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/protesters-rally-against-trumps-anti-immigrant-rhetoric-plan/

Protesters rally against Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric, plan
AP January 14, 2017, 3:40 PM

Photograph -- People rally together at the “We’re Here to Stay” immigration event at the Metropolitan AME Church on January 14, 2017 in Washington, DC. JOE RAEDLE, GETTY IMAGES
Play VIDEO -- Trump remarks on "terrible" Berlin attack, immigration policies
Play VIDEO -- An immigrant who faces deportation under Trump


WASHINGTON -- A standing-room-only crowd packed into a historic African-American church in downtown Washington on Saturday for one of dozens of rallies around the country supporting immigrant rights.

People attending included immigrants who lack permission to be in the country and their relatives and supporters. Also present were elected officials, clergy and representatives of labor and women’s groups. A line to enter Metropolitan AME Church stretched nearly a city block, and when a fire marshal declared the building full, dozens marched outside in cold, rainy weather to support the rally.

Participants carried signs with messages including “Resist Trump’s Hate” and “Tu, Yo, Todos Somos America,” which translates to “You, me, we all are America.” Speakers denounced President-elect Donald Trump for his anti-immigrant rhetoric and his pledges to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and to crack down on Muslims entering the country.

“Many more like me feel ashamed of their status, because of the intolerance and hatred toward immigrants and refugees,” said Max Kim, 19, who was brought to the U.S. from South Korea when he was 6 and lacks legal permission to stay in the country. “I stand here because I have nothing to apologize for. I am not ashamed of my status because it is a constant reminder to myself that I have something to fight for.”

The crowd urged Mr. Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress not to undo the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, aimed at helping people like Kim who were brought to the country as children.

“It works and I’m living proof of it,” said Martin Batalla Vidal, one of the 750,000 young immigrants covered by the program. Many DACA recipients are college-educated and politically savvy and have been willing to hold sit-ins and risk arrest to push for immigration changes.

Elected officials in attendance said Mr. Trump’s rhetoric and policy proposals are inconsistent with American values.

“We are not going to allow Donald Trump to bury the Statue of Liberty,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat. “We are a nation for all people, regardless of religion, regardless of background, regardless of who you love.”

The protests mark the latest chapter in a movement that has evolved since 2006, when more than a million people took to the streets to protest a Republican-backed immigration bill that would have made it a crime to be in the country illegally. The bill was widely viewed as overly harsh and sparked a backlash that culminated in massive May Day marches across the country.

The crowds this weekend are expected to be nowhere near as big as then, including rallies at a church in Washington and teachers’ union hall in Chicago. In Los Angeles and San Jose, California, groups are holding cultural events to show their support of immigrants and opposition to Mr. Trump’s proposals.

In recent years, advocacy groups have started making direct appeals to lawmakers and the president.

After multiple proposals failed in Congress, President Barack Obama in 2012 launched an executive effort to protect some young immigrants from deportation.

The creation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, aimed at helping one of the loudest and most sympathetic immigrant groups, was heralded as a good first step by advocates who hoped it would be a prelude toward overhauling immigration laws.

But that didn’t happen, and Republican-led states pushed back against Obama’s plans to expand the program.

Now the focus is on the next administration, and the future of the movement seems as uncertain as Mr. Trump’s plans.

As a candidate, Mr. Trump promised his supporters stepped-up deportations and a Mexican-funded border wall, but it is unclear which plans the celebrity businessman will act on first, and when. And many immigrants are fearful of the campaign rhetoric but less motivated to protest in the absence of specific actions.

Many participants Saturday said they would keep the pressure on Mr. Trump and said they planned to participate in next Saturday’s Women’s March on Washington.

“The threat of deportation is imminent for our communities,” said Cristina Jimenez, executive director of United We Dream and one of the rally’s organizers. “We will keep fighting. We’re not going back into the shadows.”




TWO STEPS FORWARD, THREE STEPS BACK …

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tamir-rice-shooting-disciplinary-charges-cleveland-police-officers-chief/

Tamir Rice shooting leads to disciplinary charges against Cleveland police officers, chief says
CBS/AP
January 14, 2017, 8:57 AM

Photograph -- An undated photo shows Tamir Rice. RICE FAMILY/WOIO-TV
Play VIDEO -- Tamir Rice's family settles with Cleveland over fatal police shooting
Video 02:07, Officers to face administrative charges, Cleveland 19 News Cleveland, OH


CLEVELAND -- Internal disciplinary charges have been brought against two white police officers involved in the killing of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old black boy playing with a pellet gun outside a recreation center, city officials said. But a police union said the officer who fatally shot the boy “did nothing wrong that day.”

Disciplinary charges recommended against Officers Timothy Loehmann, who shot Tamir, and Frank Garmback, who was driving their cruiser, were sent to the city’s safety director, police Chief Calvin Williams said. The director will determine what action might be taken regarding the disciplinary charges, which city officials didn’t specify during a Friday evening news conference. Disciplinary hearings will be held.

The two officers went to the recreation center in November 2014 after a man drinking beer and waiting for a bus there called 911 to report a “guy” was pointing a gun at people. The caller told the 911 dispatcher the guy was probably a juvenile and the gun might be “fake,” information never relayed to the officers.

Loehmann shot Tamir within seconds of the police cruiser skidding to a stop near the boy. The officers told investigators Loehmann had shouted three times at Tamir to raise his hands.

The killing became part of a national outcry about minorities, especially black boys and men, dying at the hands of police.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported Friday that Loehmann and Garmback received letters along with a third officer, William Cunningham.

The newspaper said the letters outlined these reasons for the discipline:

Loehmann allegedly lied on his Cleveland police application, not disclosing that when he worked at the Independence Police Department for six months a letter was placed in his personnel file saying he was emotionally immature and had “an inability to emotionally function.” The disciplinary letter also said Loehmann had an emotional breakdown on the gun range in Independence and that he failed a 2009 written exam when he applied for an officer’s job in Maple Heights. It said Loehmann never mentioned the Maple Heights test.

Garmback drove his cruiser too close to Tamir when Garmback responded to what he thought was an armed suspect and he failed to report the time he arrived at the scene.

Cunningham, who was working off-duty at the recreation center, was accused of lying to investigators and working off-duty at the center without permission.

The Cuyahoga County prosecutor announced in December 2015 that Loehmann and Garmback wouldn’t be indicted after telling a grand jury there wasn’t evidence to support criminal charges.

A Rice family attorney had called for the firings of the two officers. The attorney, Subodh Chandra, sent a letter to the police chief on Jan. 3 questioning why they hadn’t been fired or disciplined.

Tamir’s mother, Samaria Rice, settled a federal civil rights lawsuit with the city for $6 million.

She and Chandra said the city did not contact them about the administrative charges, CBS Cleveland affiliate WOIO-TV reports.

“These charges are disappointing, insufficient and regrettably the family also has little confidence that the administration will properly pursue these charges and that the charges will stick,” Chandra said.

The Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association said Friday it was “encouraged” that Loehmann wasn’t charged with any wrongdoing regarding his response to the events of Nov. 22, 2014, which it called “tragic.”

“Nevertheless, all agree that Officer Loehmann was not wrong in reacting the way he did,” union president Stephen S. Loomis said in a statement. “It appears that the actual charges are created to discipline him, and perhaps discharge him, despite the fact that he did nothing wrong that day.”

The union said it was “disappointing” that Garmback was charged with “making a tactical error on his approach, when it is apparent that the car slid in the ice and mud well beyond what he intended.”

The union said it was reviewing the disciplinary charges and would prepare appropriate defenses for the officers. It said there would be no comment from the officers.



REINSTITUTING JIM CROW JUST WON’T BE AS EASY AS SOME APPARENTLY THOUGHT – THREE ARTICLES

THE TWEET

http://www.wlox.com/story/34259042/city-of-biloxi-under-fire-for-great-americans-day-post

City of Biloxi under fire for 'Great Americans Day' post
Friday, January 13th 2017, 9:40 pm EST
Saturday, January 14th 2017, 4:39 pm EST
By Nicole Harris, Digital Producer


Just three days before the federal observation of one of the most notable civil rights leaders, the City of Biloxi has found itself in the middle of a social media war.

Shortly before 7 p.m., the city posted on its Facebook page that they would be closed on the third Monday of the month. The problem - they didn't reference the day as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

Instead, the city told nearly 30,000 people on Facebook that non-emergency municipal offices would be closed in observance of "Great Americans Day." The city has since deleted the post after news agencies around the country picked up the story, garnering it thousands of shares and comments.

Joseph Wallace tweeted, "I keep trying to believe the south has progressed, guess not as much as some advertise."

Follow
Joseph Wallace @wallace_joseph
@CityofBiloxi @CoryBooker @SenWarren I keep trying to believe the south has progressed, guess not as much as some advertise.
7:00 PM - 13 Jan 2017
13 13 Retweets 156 156 likes

On Facebook, Takasia M. said in part, "....How incredibly disrespectful. We will not take away someone who did so much for this country to have it whitewashed by the same state who was against him to begin with."

Representatives for the City of Biloxi declined to comment, only saying the name change to honor King and Confederate Army Gen. Robert E. Lee was part of state legislature.

Miss. Code Ann. § 3-3-7 states that the third Monday of the month is to be observed for the birthdays of both men. The code does not state the renaming.

However, archived notes from the City of Biloxi's website show that the name change was introduced to City Council on Dec. 23, 1985; and approved on Dec. 31, 1985.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
Follow
Rose Nissen @RoseNissen
@CityofBiloxi The ordinance was unanimously passed by the Biloxi City Council on Dec. 31, 1985. http://weblink.mccinnovations.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=438&page=1&searchid=cb3df7d4-7edf-4ef9-9f69-c4d64329a6ea …
8:19 PM - 13 Jan 2017
30 30 Retweets 88 88 likes

In a Facebook thread, State Rep. Jay Hughes posted, "Great Americans Day is a combination of all presidents days, an alternative for Washington's Birthday. It has been recognized as the first Monday after the super bowl. MLK day is still MLK day. It is before the superbowl [sic]."

WLOX has reached out to Hughes, who posted that he is not aware of purported state legislation, for a comment.

After hours of backlash, a statement from Biloxi Mayor FoFo Gilich was posted on Facebook, noting that he recognizes the day as "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

"We definitely want to remove any doubt that that piece of paper or that term or official name. We can correct that," Gilich told WLOX Friday night. "My direction to the folks who handle those responsibilities, as far as I'm concerned, it is Martin Luther King. If we have to do something to match the designation by the federal government of the holiday, then we will."

Only three states combine the celebration of King and Lee's birthdays; Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas. In 2015, the latter proposed a bill - which went on to fail - to eliminate the dual status of the holiday.

"If there's a perception of racism with not honoring the federal holiday and controversy over the name, the council would be willing to revisit and revise the 1985 ordinance," the mayor added.

The mayor says he believes the City Council should take steps in its Jan. 17 meeting to have the holiday re-named to reflect the federal name.

While it's uncertain at this point if Mississippi will be triumphant in the battle brewing online, WLOX is working to learn more.

Copyright WLOX 2017. All Rights Reserve


THE REACTION

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/biloxi-mississippi-great-americans-day-city-council-to-reconsider-designation/

Miss. town to reconsider "Great Americans Day" designation on MLK Day, mayor says
CBS NEWS
January 15, 2017, 1:02 AM

Photograph -- The Biloxi City Council will meet to reconsider the use of the name “Great Americans Day.” WLOX
Photograph -- biloxi-great-americans-day-2-2017-1-14.jpg
The City of Biloxi posted on Facebook and Twitter about “Great Americans Day” on Jan. 13, 2017. WLOX


BILOXI, MS -- The Biloxi City Council will meet Monday to discuss using the name “Great Americans Day” on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the mayor posted on the city’s website on Saturday.

The council will meet Monday at 10 a.m. to reconsider the designation; just one hour before the city’s annual MLK Day parade, CBS affiliate WLOX reports.

Biloxi was at the center of a social media firestorm when the city published now-deleted Twitter and Facebook posts that read “Non-emergency municipal offices in Biloxi will be closed on Monday in observance of Great Americans Day.” The posts referred to the third Monday in January, which is also the federal holiday that honors civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr. There was no mention of King originally but the Facebook was appeared to be edited to include MLK Day.

In subsequent posts, the city of Biloxi tweeted that it is a state holiday, but a list of Mississippi state holidays didn’t list “Great Americans Day.” Mississippi is one of three states that recognizes Robert E. Lee on the third Monday in January in addition to Martin Luther King, Jr.

According to the Sun Herald newspaper, Biloxi designated in an ordinance in 1985 that the third Monday in January will “honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as well as other great Americans who have made important contributions to the birth, growth and evolution of this country.”

Mayor Andrew “FoFo” Gilich said in a statement on the city’s website that he believes the Code of Ordinances should be updated to the official federal name of the holiday. Biloxi’s Twitter and Facebook pages also featured a statement by him on Friday night saying that

After thousands of shares and retweets, Biloxi spokesman Vincent Creel told WLOX that the city instantly became click bait.

“We’re being called racist. That’s not the people of Biloxi, that is not the mayor, or the city council of Biloxi,” Creel said. “It’s just unfortunate that we’re now being painted with that brush.”

Creel says the reaction is disheartening, given that the city has done a lot for the annual MLK celebration.

“It was an honest error. I think they just pulled the verbiage from it and posted it on the tweet, and when there was a reaction to it, there’s no cover up,” said councilman Kenny Glavan. “You know, we’re all looking at it and saying, ‘Hey, we need to change it.’”

“It brought a light to everything, which is great,” said councilman Felix Gines. “Because it gives us a chance to straighten it out.”

Officials hope to avoid any long-term damage.

“We encourage you to come out and live the dream, this is what Dr. King is all about. Dr. King’s dream is about fighting, standing in there fighting, not sitting on the sidelines. Fighting to make that change, and we are making that change,” noted Gines.

Resident Glenda Crawford says the viral uproar was an overreaction.

“Biloxi is so different than what they made it out to be,” Crawford said. “Everybody here sees no color. We’re all one here. We all get along as one.”

Markita McIntyre understands the reaction because the way of communication nowadays isn’t like it was in 1985.

“We have Twitter, we have Instagram, we have Facebook. Everything is more relevant than it was,” she said. “We have a right to feel the way we do but it happened so long ago.”

There wasn’t much talking going on at an MLK Day event called Gospel Explosion in nearby Gulfport, but that didn’t mean the now notorious Biloxi tweet wasn’t in the back of everyone’s mind, WLOX reports.

“At first it was really hard for me to believe. I actually read it and re-read it because I kind of felt like, no, that’s not what they’re saying,” said Ritchie Moffett.

The controversial tweet referring to MLK Junior Day as Great Americans Day doesn’t sit well with many. In fact, it sparks outrage in most.

“I lost my mind because I remember when they did this Great American Day that was back several years ago, and it was crazy then,” said Gwendolyn Beck.

Hollie Parimon’s son, who lives more than 500 miles away, called her when he first saw it on social media.

“My son from Dallas, Texas called me in regards to the tweet that was going around in Biloxi Mississippi, and he was very upset about it,” said Parimon.

Bonnie Martin of McComb hasn’t seen the online firestorm, but calls it a slap in the face to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and what he went through.

“Mississippi, it’s like we’re already fighting to be better and something’s always putting us down,” said Martin.

One Gulfport resident says he has faith the current Biloxi city leaders will make it right.

“I’m still a little stunned by what’s going on, but I feel like the outcome is going to be great. I understand that there is a meeting coming, and I feel like people are going to share their personal testimonies on what that day means and I think everything is going to be fine,” said Moffett.



I’M GLAD TO SEE THAT TWO CITIZENS FROM THIS ARTICLE HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROBLEM FOR WHAT IT IS, AND WANT TO TRY TO “BE BETTER.” THE REAL SHAME IN THIS KIND OF THING IS THAT THE HARDCORE RACISTS ARE USUALLY FEWER IN NUMBER THAN THE OTHERS WHO ARE MORE OR LESS NEUTRAL IN THEIR FEELINGS, OR LIKE THE GENTLEMEN MENTIONED IN THE STORY ABOVE, WHO ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING PAST THE KNEE-JERK RACISM THAT POPS UP LIKE MUSHROOMS ON A RAINY DAY. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE ON GUARD AGAINST WITHIN OUR OWN MINDS. IF IT CAN BE ROOTED OUT THERE, WE’RE WELL ON THE WAY TO BEING BETTER CITIZENS. IT IS HARD TO TALK TO BLACK PEOPLE ABOUT SUCH ISSUES IF WE’RE WHITE. THE KEY THING TO LEARN IS THAT THE BASIC HUMANITY IS EMBEDDED THERE IN EVERYONE. I DO THINK THAT SPECIALIZED “DISCUSSION GROUPS” WOULD HELP, BUT THAT’S TOO “MIDDLE CLASS,” FOR LOTS OF PEOPLE. I AM THINKING OF STANDARD GROUP THERAPY WITH A BENT TOWARD RACIAL AND OTHER CULTURAL ISSUES.

MY PERSONAL TECHNIQUE IS TO ALWAYS SPEAK, SMILE AND TALK JUST A LITTLE TO EVERYBODY I MEET IN A GIVEN DAY, BUT NOT USUALLY ABOUT RACE OR POLITICS UNTIL I GET TO KNOW SOMEONE BETTER. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT’S DEEPLY BUILT INTO MANY SOUTHERNERS. THAT INCLUDES STORES I VISIT TO DO MY CHORES AND IN MY APARTMENT HOUSE (WHICH IS ABOUT 90% BLACK DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT SO MANY BLACK PEOPLE REALLY DON’T HAVE MUCH MONEY, LIKE ME.) IT IS SET UP FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED UNDER JACKSONVILLE CITY GOVERNMENT AND HUD MANAGEMENT, SO THERE’S NEVER BEEN ANY NEED FOR SQUADS OF COPS COMING IN TO ARREST SOMEONE FOR MARIJUANA, AND NO STRANGE OR THREATENING PEOPLE, THAT I’VE SEEN, EITHER. BESIDES, WE DO HAVE A UNIFORMED GUARD ON THE FRONT DESK TO REGISTER PEOPLE AND HELP THEM FIND THINGS AS NEEDED. IT IS CLEAN AND THE PEOPLE ARE NICE – NOT RICH OR TERRIBLY WELL EDUCATED, BUT MAINLY GENTLE SOULS. I REALLY DO LIKE PEOPLE LIKE THAT WHO ARE DECENT AND WITHOUT THOSE ANNOYING PRETENSIONS TO A “HIGHER” CLASS IN THE WORLD, CAUSING THEM TO “LOOK DOWN THEIR NOSES” AT ME OR AT OTHERS. AVOIDING THOSE MAINLY UNCONSCIOUS BAD SOCIAL HABITS IS A GREAT FIRST STEP TOWARD GOOD COMMUNITY RELATIONS.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-blasts-civil-rights-icon-john-lewis-in-twitter-attack/

Trump blasts civil rights icon John Lewis in Twitter attack
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
January 14, 2017, 11:28 AM

Photograph -- In this Sept. 19, 2016 file photo, Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., reacts after being presented with the Liberty Medal for his dedication to civil rights during a ceremony in Philadelphia. MATT SLOCUM/AP

President-elect Donald Trump railed against civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, in two tweets Saturday morning, following the congressman’s plans to boycott next week’s inauguration.

The president-elect disparaged Lewis as “All talk, talk talk - no action or results” and attacking him for representing a Georgia district Mr. Trump claimed was “crime infested” and “falling apart.”

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to......
7:50 AM - 14 Jan 2017
12,951 12,951 Retweets 47,683 47,683 likes

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!
8:07 AM - 14 Jan 2017
10,301 10,301 Retweets 42,267 42,267 likes

The attacks, launched just two days before the nation celebrates the civil rights legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., follow Lewis’ decision to sit out the presidential inauguration Friday. On missing the ceremony -- the first in three decades that Lewis will not be present for -- the Georgia Democrat told NBC in an interview, “you cannot be at home with something that you feel that is wrong.”

Lewis also contested Mr. Trump’s legitimacy as president in his NBC interview scheduled to air Sunday.

“I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president,” he said. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.”

After Mr. Trump’s pointed missives, several Twitter users came to Lewis’ immediate defense, tweeting their own critical messages to the president-elect and reminding him of the Georgia congressman’s record on civil rights.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle made public statements on the Democrat’s behalf:

Follow
Nancy Pelosi ✔ @NancyPelosi
Ahead of #MLKday2017, let us remember that many have tried to silence @repjohnlewis over the years. All have failed.
9:48 AM - 14 Jan 2017
4,434 4,434 Retweets 7,558 7,558 likes

Follow
Ben Sasse ✔ @BenSasse
John Lewis and his "talk" have changed the world.http://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/selma-marches-bloody-sunday-mark-50th-anniversary-29411771/image-hosea-williams-john-lewis-confront-troopers-bloody-sunday-29412040 … https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/820255947956383744
9:26 AM - 14 Jan 2017
2,736 2,736 Retweets 5,581 5,581 likes

Follow
Kamala Harris ✔ @KamalaHarris
John Lewis is an icon of the Civil Rights Movement who is fearless in the pursuit of justice and equality. He deserves better than this. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/820251730407473153 …
9:28 AM - 14 Jan 2017
5,244 5,244 Retweets 10,767 10,767 likes
One Republican strategist pointed out the irony of lashing out at Lewis, a former chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee who risked his life organizing sit-ins and marches to fight racial injustice in the Jim Crow South, on the eve of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Follow
Rory Cooper ✔ @rorycooper
You have to hit back. Can't help yourself. But accusing John Lewis of being all talk on MLK weekend? That's your plan? https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/820255947956383744
8:26 AM - 14 Jan 2017
88 88 Retweets 137 137 likes

Others mentioned Lewis’ actions during “Bloody Sunday” in 1965, when he attempted to lead a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, that ended in brutal police action against protesters.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
howard wolfson ✔ @howiewolf
John Lewis did more to make America great in one day on the Edmund Pettus Bridge than Donald Trump ever will.
8:34 AM - 14 Jan 2017
7,379 7,379 Retweets 11,119 11,119 likes

Follow
Mo Elleithee ✔ @MoElleithee
Actually, Rep. Lewis' actions earned him a cracked skull & helped result in a more just society.

You have a lot of catching up to do. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/820255947956383744 …
8:27 AM - 14 Jan 2017
44 44 Retweets 108 108 likes
5h
Joshua DuBois ✔ @joshuadubois
. @realDonaldTrump John Lewis enters police van w/tape on his head, marking spot where he was beaten for marching. pic.twitter.com/2UXvMW5yQK
Follow
Joshua DuBois ✔ @joshuadubois
.@realDonaldTrump John Lewis has faced down bullies, bigotry and tyrants his entire life and overcome them all. Don't mess with John Lewis. pic.twitter.com/2cXi7rPL3S
8:20 AM - 14 Jan 2017
View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
4,354 4,354 Retweets 10,469 10,469 likes

And still other journalists and historians pointed out the factual inaccuracies in Mr. Trump’s tweets about the district represented by Lewis, a 16-term congressman.

Follow
Kelly Gannon @K_Gannon
Im a historian of Atlanta & have lived in Lewis' dist. Beyond the personal attack, this is simply not true. Anyone in real estate knows that https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/820251730407473153 …
8:17 AM - 14 Jan 2017
79 79 Retweets 81 81 likes
Follow
Dave Weigel ✔ @daveweigel
Hardly the most egregious part of the Trump tweet, but Lewis represents the nicest parts of Atlanta. Black congressman does not = slumlord.
8:18 AM - 14 Jan 2017
2,393 2,393 Retweets 4,873 4,873 likes


THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE. IT STARTS WITH AN IGNORANT TRUMP ATTACK ON AN ALMOST SAINTLY SENIOR CONGRESSMAN WITH A LONG STRING OF SUCCESSES – NOT “ALL TALK.” DO READ THE COMMENTS FROM OTHER TWEETERS, ALMOST ALL OF WHOM ARE “GIVING TRUMP WHAT FOR!” MY FAVORITE IS THE ONE THAT ENDS WITH, “DON’T MESS WITH JOHN LEWIS!”



http://www.salon.com/2017/01/14/americans-overwhelmingly-support-bernie-sanders-economic-policies-so-howd-we-end-up-here/

Americans overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders’ economic policies — so how’d we end up here?
CONOR LYNCH
SATURDAY, JAN 14, 2017 06:00 AM EST

Most Americans want single-payer health care, economic justice and action on climate change. That day will come

Photograph -- Bernie Sanders (Credit: AP/John Minchillo)
VIDEO -- TRUMP'S CABINET CONTRADICTIONS, Duration Time 2:07


During a CNN town hall held by Sen. Bernie Sanders last Monday, the Vermont senator and progressive icon tried to drive home a point that he has frequently made in the past: There is widespread support for most of the economic policies that he ran on, even if they were often portrayed as radical and divisive by the media.

“The overwhelming majority of the American people — including many people who voted for Mr. Trump — support the ideas that we’re talking about,” insisted Sanders. “On many economic issues you would be surprised at how many Americans hold the same views. Very few people believe what the Republican leadership believes now: tax breaks for billionaires and cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”

Public polling tends to support his claim. A Gallup survey from last May, for example, revealed that a majority of Americans (58 percent) support the idea of replacing the Affordable Care Act with a federally funded health care system (including four in 10 Republicans!), while only 22 percent of Americans say they want Obamacare repealed and don’t want to replace it with a single-payer system. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll from last year had similar results: Almost two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) had a positive reaction to “Medicare-for-all,” while only a small minority (13 percent) supported repealing the ACA and replacing it with a Republican alternative. These are surprising numbers when you consider how the Sanders campaign’s “Medicare-for-all” plan was written off by critics as being too extreme.

On other issues, a similar story presents itself. Public Policy Polling (PPP) has found that the vast majority (88 percent) of voters in Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — four crucial swing states, three of which went to Trump this fall — oppose cutting Social Security benefits, while a majority (68 percent) oppose privatizing Social Security. Similarly, 67 percent of Americans support requiring high-income earners to pay the payroll tax for all of their income (the cap is currently $118,500), according to a Gallup poll. America’s two other major social programs, Medicare and Medicaid, are also widely supported by Americans, and the vast majority oppose any spending cuts to either. In fact, more Americans support cutting the national defense budget than Medicare or Medicaid.

It goes on and on. A majority of Americans, 61 percent, believe that upper-income earners pay too little in taxes. A majority of 64 percent believe that corporations don’t pay their fair share in taxes. Significant majorities believe that wealth distribution is unfair in America, support raising the minimum wage (though perhaps not as high as Sanders would like), and say they are worried about climate change.

So a consistent majority of Americans would seem to agree almost across the board with a self-proclaimed democratic socialist and object to the reactionary agenda of congressional Republicans. How, then, did we end up with a Republican-controlled Congress that is dead set on repealing the ACA without a viable replacement (let alone a single-payer type of system supported by the majority); cutting and possibly privatizing Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid; slashing taxes for the wealthiest Americans; and ignoring climate change?

One answer that usually comes to mind is the culture war. The modern political era can be traced back to the 1960s, when various liberation movements — from Civil Rights and gay liberation to second-wave feminism and the anti-war movement — emerged to combat different injustices, including white supremacy, gender inequality, homophobia and American imperialism. These progressive movements rapidly changed America’s cultural and political landscape, and triggered a reactionary movement that author Thomas Frank called “the great backlash” in his 2004 book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”.

The Republican Party exploited reactionary sentiments that had surged in response to the tumultuous ’60s, and a great backlash ensued. The GOP appealed to racist and resentful whites in the South, who felt persecuted by the civil-rights legislation that had finally brought legal equality to African-Americans. (This is a good example of the popular maxim: “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”) The so-called Southern strategy was set in motion by Richard Nixon and perfected some years later by Ronald Reagan, and this precipitated a complete political realignment that saw the South go from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican.

Since this realignment, the culture wars have steadily taken over American politics, and the reactionaries have invariably lost ground as social and moral values have evolved and Americans have become increasingly tolerant. Consider LGBT relations: In 2000, only 40 percent of Americans found gay or lesbian relations morally acceptable, according to Gallup; by 2015 that number had increased to 63 percent.

Ironically, this has actually benefited many right-wing culture warriors, who have taken up increasingly frivolous issues over the years for political gain (like the “War on Christmas,” for instance). As Thomas Frank observed in his aforementioned book: “As culture war, the backlash was born to lose. Its goal is not to win cultural battles but to take offense, conspicuously, vocally, even flamboyantly. Indignation is the great aesthetic principle of backlash culture.”

For the economic and political elite, of course, trivializing the culture wars and inventing fictitious issues like the “War on Christmas” has always been the aim, because it divides the public and diverts attention from other issues — especially fundamental questions of economic and foreign policy. It is no coincidence, then, that economic policy has been drawn inexorably to the right over the past several decades as the populace has become increasingly divided over cultural disputes, even though the majority of Americans support progressive economic policies.

This is only part of the story, of course. While a culturally divided populace has no doubt benefited America’s power elite, the rightward economic shift was primarily a result of corporate America and other monied interests successfully infiltrating Washington with an army of lobbyists and flooding the political system with big money (an interesting backstory to this is told in the book “Winner-Take-All Politics”).

A 2014 Princeton University study conducted by professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page confirmed this phenomenon, and illustrated that modern America is more of an oligarchy than a democracy. “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose,” write the researchers. This largely explains why a majority of Americans can support the economic policies advocated by Sanders, yet mainstream critics can decry his platform as “pie-in-the-sky” idealism.

The goal of Sanders’ presidential campaign was not only to take on the economic elite in America, but to promote solidarity among divided working-class and middle-class Americans and, eventually, to smash the plutocracy. This led many critics to accuse him of disregarding important cultural and social issues in favor of economic ones.

“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” asked Hillary Clinton during the primaries, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?” It was a specious argument, of course, and one would be hard pressed to find any reasonable person who has suggested that economic reforms would suddenly cure all social ills or eliminate something as entrenched as racism. But economic and social issues tend to be interconnected. Racism against African-Americans, for example, was largely a product of landowning elites in the colonial era seeking to divide poor whites and black slaves after Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676. As Michelle Alexander documented in her influential book, “The New Jim Crow”:

Deliberately and strategically, the planter class extended special privileges to poor whites in an effort to drive a wedge between them and black slaves … These measures effectively eliminated the risk of future alliances between black slaves and poor whites. Poor whites suddenly had a direct, personal stake in the existence of a race-based system of slavery. Their own plight had not improved by much, but at least they were not slaves. Once the planter elite split the labor force, poor whites responded to the logic of their situation and sought ways to expand their racially privileged position.

The point Sanders has attempted to make over the past two years, it seems, is that class can help transcend other social and cultural divisions and promote an economic solidarity that would go a long way toward overcoming deeply entrenched parochial beliefs and attitudes.

Of course, after the election of Trump — a politician who epitomizes “backlash culture” — the idea of overcoming things like racism and sexism in the near future seems far-fetched. But a different kind of backlash will ensue, perhaps, once the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress start enacting their widely unpopular economic agenda.

Conor Lynch is a writer and journalist living in New York City. His work has appeared on Salon, AlterNet, Counterpunch and openDemocracy. Follow him on Twitter: @dilgentbureauct.



HOW AN ABSOLUTE SITUATION OF “SERVITUDE” BECAME A RACE BASED INSTITUTION IN THE SOUTH IS EXPLAINED IN “BACON’S REBELLION,” BELOW. IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COLONIES ANYONE WHO COULDN’T PAY HIS OWN WAY WAS LIKELY TO BECOME AN INDENTURED SERVANT. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WAS INDENTURED TO HIS BROTHER AT FIRST. THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS A SLAVE WHO HAD NO PATH TO CITIZENSHIP EXCEPT BY “BUYING HIS FREEDOM,” BUT IT WAS COMMON IN A SOCIETY WITH NO FACTORIES, ONLY MANUAL LABOR OR SERVITUDE.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon's_Rebellion

Bacon's Rebellion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bacon's Rebellion
Howard Pyle - The Burning of Jamestown.jpg
The Burning of Jamestown by Howard Pyle, c. 1905.
Date 1676
Location Jamestown, Colony of Virginia

Goals Change in Virginia's Indian-Frontier policy
Methods Demonstrations, vigilantes
Parties to the civil conflict
Common indentured servants and African slaves

Sir William Berkeley, Royal Colonial Governor appointed by the Virginia Company
Lead figures
Nathaniel Bacon
William Berkeley
Arrests, etc
Deaths: 24 hanged[1]

Bacon's Rebellion was an armed rebellion in 1676 by Virginia settlers led by Nathaniel Bacon against the rule of Governor William Berkeley. The colony's dismissive policy as it related to the political challenges of its western frontier, along with other challenges including leaving Bacon out of his inner circle, refusing to allow Bacon to be a part of his fur trade with the Native Americans, and Doeg tribe Indian attacks, helped to motivate a popular uprising against Berkeley, who had failed to address the demands of the colonists regarding their safety.

About a thousand Virginians of all classes and races rose up in arms against Berkeley, attacking Native Americans, chasing Berkeley from Jamestown, Virginia, and ultimately torching the capital. The rebellion was first suppressed by a few armed merchant ships from London whose captains sided with Berkeley and the loyalists.[2] Government forces from England arrived soon after and spent several years defeating pockets of resistance and reforming the colonial government to be once more under direct royal control.[3]

It was the first rebellion in the American colonies in which discontented frontiersmen took part. A similar uprising in Maryland took place later that year. The alliance between indentured servants and Africans (most enslaved until death or freed), united by their bond-servitude, disturbed the ruling class, who responded by hardening the racial caste of slavery in an attempt to divide the two races from subsequent united uprisings with the passage of the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705.[4][5][6] While the farmers did not succeed in their initial goal of driving Native Americans from Virginia, the rebellion did result in Berkeley being recalled to England.

Motivations[edit]
The immediate cause of the rebellion was Governor William Berkeley's refusal to retaliate for a series of Native American attacks on frontier settlements. In addition, many colonists wished to push westward to claim Indian frontier land, but they were denied permission by Gov. Berkeley.[4]
Modern historians have suggested it may have been a power play by Bacon against Berkeley and his favoritism towards certain members of court. Bacon's financial backers included men of wealth from outside Berkeley's circle of influence.[4]
Historian Peter Thompson argues that Bacon's motivation was a personal vendetta between him and Berkeley. However, Bacon's followers used the rebellion as an effort to gain government recognition of the shared interests among all social classes of the colony in protecting the "commonalty" and advancing its welfare.[7]

Rebellion[edit]
When Sir William Berkeley refused to retaliate against the Native Americans, farmers gathered around at the report of a new raiding party. Nathaniel Bacon arrived with a quantity of brandy; after it was distributed, he was elected leader. Against Berkeley's orders, the group struck south until they came to the Occaneechi tribe. After getting the Occaneechi to attack the Susquehannock, Bacon and his men followed by killing most of the men, women, and children at the village. Upon their return, they discovered that Berkeley had called for new elections to the Burgesses in order to better facilitate the Native American problem.[8]

Governor Berkeley baring his breast for Bacon to shoot after refusing him a commission (1895 engraving)
The recomposed House of Burgesses enacted a number of sweeping reforms. (Bacon was not serving his duty in the House; rather, he was at his plantation miles away.) It limited the powers of the governor and restored suffrage rights to landless freemen.[9]

After passage of these laws, Bacon arrived with 500 followers in Jamestown to demand a commission to lead militia against the Native Americans. The governor, however, refused to yield to the pressure. When Bacon had his men take aim at Berkeley, he responded by "baring his breast" to Bacon and told Bacon to shoot him. Seeing that the Governor would not be moved, Bacon then had his men take aim at the assembled burgesses, who quickly granted Bacon his commission. Bacon had earlier been promised a commission before he retired to his estate if he could only be on "good" behavior for two weeks. While Bacon was at Jamestown with his small army, eight colonists were killed on the frontier in Henrico County (from where he marched) due to a lack of manpower on the frontier.[10]

After months of conflict, Bacon's forces, numbering 300-500 men, moved to Jamestown. They burned the colonial capital to the ground on September 19, 1676. Outnumbered, Berkeley retreated across the river.[11]

Before an English naval squadron could arrive to aid Berkeley and his forces, Bacon died from dysentery on October 26, 1676.[12][13] John Ingram took over leadership of the rebellion, but many followers drifted away. The rebellion did not last long after that. Berkeley launched a series of successful amphibious attacks across the Chesapeake Bay and defeated the rebels. His forces defeated the small pockets of insurgents spread across the Tidewater

Thomas Grantham, a captain of a ship cruising the York River, used cunning and force to disarm the rebels. He tricked his way into the garrison of the rebellion, and promised to pardon everyone involved once they got back onto the ship. However, once they were safely ensconced in the hold, he trained the ship's guns on them, and disarmed the rebellion. Through various other tactics, the other rebel garrisons were likewise overcome.[14]

Backlash[edit]

Bacon's wealthy landowning followers returned their loyalty to the Virginia Government after Bacon's death. Governor Berkeley returned to power. He seized the property of several rebels for the colony and executed 23 men by hanging,[17] including the former governor of the Albemarle Sound colony, William Drummond.[18]

After an investigative committee returned its report to King Charles II, Berkeley was relieved of the governorship, and recalled to England. "The fear of civil war among whites frightened Virginia’s ruling elite, who took steps to consolidate power and improve their image: for example, restoration of property qualifications for voting, reducing taxes and adoption of a more aggressive Indian policy."[4] Charles II was reported to have commented, "That old fool has put to death more people in that naked country than I did here for the murder of my father."[19] No record of the king's comments have been found; the origin of the story appears to have been colonial myth that arose at least 30 years after the events.[20]

Indentured servants both black and white joined the frontier rebellion. Seeing them united in a cause alarmed the ruling class. Historians believe the rebellion hastened the hardening of racial lines associated with slavery, as a way for planters and the colony to control some of the poor.[21]




SEE THE INTERESTING ARTICLE BELOW. TRUMP’S “LOVE-EXCORIATE RELATIONSHIP” WITH THE PRESS IS NEW TO ME, AND UNCOMMON ON THE INTERNET SEARCHES ALSO. BUT I’M NOTHING IF NOT PERSISTENT.

.1… AN ARTICLE KEEPS POPPING UP ABOUT A POOR SNAIL WHOSE SHELL SWIRLS TO THE LEFT RATHER THAN THE RIGHT, GIVING THE POOR BABY A PROBLEM MATING WITH THE NORMALS WHOSE SHELL SWIRLS TO THE RIGHT. I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT CAME TO BE LINKED UP TO THE TERM “LOVE-EXCORIATE RELATIONSHIP.
.2… “EXCORIATE” IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL TERM FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO PICK OFF THE SKIN ON PARTS OF THEIR BODIES OUT OF A (PROBABLY GUILT BASED) COMPULSION.

.3… MORE COMMONLY EXCORIATE MEANS TO LOUDLY AND HARSHLY BERATE SOMEONE. UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE SEEN THINGS OF THAT TYPE MARRIED COUPLES OR PARENT/CHILD RELATIONSHIPS IN WHICH THE PARTNER WHO IS LESS ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF INTERNALIZES THE ABUSE AS EITHER SELF-HATRED, OR DEVELOPS A VERY STRONG OTHER-HATRED TOWARD THOSE WHO ATTACK HIM. I THINK THAT MAY BE EXACTLY WHY TRUMP SHOWS THE SENSITIVE / AGGRESSIVE SIDES WHICH I’VE SEEN A DOZEN OR MORE TIMES ALREADY. THE IDEA THAT ONLY POOR PEOPLE ARE CRUEL TO THEIR CHILDREN IS SIMPLY NOT ACCURATE.

IT DOES CONCERN ME, BECAUSE TRUMP HASN’T EVEN GOTTEN INTO THE REALLY TOUGH STUFF ABOUT BEING PRESIDENT YET. WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN HE DOES. IT REMINDS ME OF A WONDERFUL OLD COUNTRY SONG FROM MY YOUNG YEARS IN WHICH THE KEY LINE IS, “DETOUR! THERE’S A MUDDY ROAD AHEAD, DETOUR! … SHOULDA READ THAT DETOUR SIGN.”
(https://secondhandsongs.com/work/39959.)

SINCE WE DO HAVE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN THIS COUNTRY, I EXPECT TO SEE A LOT OF THE PRESS RETALIATION WHICH IS ALREADY OCCURRING, AND FROM ALL OF OUR SATIRISTS, SOME VERY FUNNY MATERIAL HAS ALREADY EMERGED. UNFORTUNATELY TRUMP HAS NO SENSE OF HUMOR UNLESS HE IS DOING THE ABUSING. THAT WILD AND EXCEPTIONALLY UGLY LOOKING PANTOMIME HE DID OF THE PARTIALLY DISABLED REPORTER, NOW HE THOUGHT THAT WAS “FUNNY.” OH, WELL. IT’S GOING TO BE AN INTERESTING FOUR YEARS.



http://www.npr.org/2017/01/14/509770466/trump-is-bringing-his-love-excoriate-relationship-with-media-into-office

Trump Is Bringing His Love-Excoriate Relationship With Media Into Office
David Folkenflik - Square
DAVID FOLKENFLIK
January 14, 20176:54 AM ET
Commentary

Photograph -- Greg Calhoun, President-elect Donald Trump and Steve Harvey speak with the media Friday at Trump Tower in New York. Bryan R. Smith/AFP/Getty Images
Audio only -- 'The Press Has Poisoned The Minds Of Our Voters': Unpacking Trump's Claims, Listen· 3:52


So now we know: This is how it's going to be after Inauguration Day, too.

When coverage falls afoul of Donald Trump, the soon-to-be-president will feed the media itself into the news grinder. As Matthew Continetti wrote in the Washington Free Beacon, the new administration is going on permanent offense; Trump will invert the usual equation to subject individual journalists and their employers to scrutiny and slashing attacks of the kind usually reserved for public officials.

Trump started Wednesday's cyclone of a press conference with a warning sheathed in seeming compliments: Thanks for the restraint in holding off on all those salacious and unproven allegations about my personal behavior, and the claims of collusion between my associates and the Russians! And don't tick me off if you want any more of these press conferences.

It had, after all, been a half-year since Trump last held one — a hiatus which he ascribed to his displeasure with reporting about him.

Trump Won. The Media Lost. What Next?
ANALYSIS
Trump Won. The Media Lost. What Next?

Standing at a lectern in the atrium of the Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan, Trump went on to denounce CNN ("Your organization is terrible. ... You are fake news!") for editorial decisions made by BuzzFeed (which he called "a failing pile of garbage").

CNN had reported that senior U.S. intelligence officials took the allegations seriously enough to brief President Obama and the president-elect — a story that sparked a firestorm but proved uncontroversial among most journalists to publish. It was unquestionably newsworthy.

BuzzFeed, by contrast, had sparked industrywide debate in deciding to post the full file of unsubstantiated claim — compiled, apparently, by a former British intelligence officer working on behalf of Trump's political foes in both parties. The site's rationale was that posting allowed readers to make up their own minds, even as reporters raced to determine which allegations, if any, held up to scrutiny.

Trump shouted down CNN's Jim Acosta as the reporter repeatedly sought to ask Trump a question in response to his pointed critique. Afterward Sean Spicer, Trump's incoming White House press secretary, strode briskly up to Acosta and admonished him.

Spicer later told me Acosta had been "disgraceful, rude and inappropriate" in pressing Trump. Spicer also said that he had told Acosta "if he did it again, I'd have him thrown out."

Trump's rhetorical jujitsu and verbal attacks at times overshadowed the meat of the stories that drew his ire, including his camp's alleged ties to the Russians and his business entanglements.

Some of Trump's aides ginned up some hollow stagecraft for the event: Trump stood near a table loaded with unmarked manila folders filled with sheets of paper as his lawyer explained why he would give control of his companies to his sons rather than sell his enterprises. Reporters never saw what the folders contained or learned what information they purportedly held.

Even so, the question of conflicts of interest surfaced unexpectedly in the Trump Tower atrium, effectively a high-end mall.

"The blue curtain behind Trump didn't quite obscure the booth where Ivanka Trump sells her fine jewelry," the Daily Beast's Olivia Nuzzi noted minutes after the event wrapped up. "You could see the mannequins where they normally have these diamond necklaces that Ivanka Trump is selling in Trump Tower.

"Even in their staging, they couldn't quite get rid of the idea that Ivanka and all of the children — and Donald Trump — will have a massive conflict of interest," Nuzzi said afterward.

On Thursday morning, Trump picked up on Twitter where he left off: "CNN is in a total meltdown with their FAKE NEWS because their ratings are tanking since election and their credibility will soon be gone!"

Actually, CNN's ratings are flying high right now — thanks in no small part to the controversy and conflict engendered by the president-elect in the past year. And as for fake news, Trump himself has been a leading purveyor of false claims, from hoaxes over Obama's birth to unfounded allegations of widespread voter fraud.

ANALYSIS
How The Media Failed In Covering Donald Trump


Some press critics have publicly wrestled with the need for new strategies and rules on how to cover this administration.

I don't think Trump's arrival requires new strategies, but perhaps new tactics. Yes, reporters might benefit from standing by one another more, as some commentators have advised. They could reiterate questions posed by competitors who are frozen out, or, in the case of Acosta, who never did get to ask the question he sought, yielding time back to him.

At minimum they could call out Trump and his aides on the practice — as Jake Tapper, then with ABC News, publicly did in sticking up for Fox News reporters and Washington bureau chiefs did in private exchanges with Obama aides.

The media could benefit from adhering to first principles that probably should have been observed more attentively all along: Access matters less than hard-nosed reporting away from the camera. And the press must recognize it can't rely on other institutions to raise the right questions. (One congressional committee chairman, instead of serving as a check on the president-elect, suggested he would investigate a federal ethics official who said Trump's moves to manage possible business conflicts were insufficient.)

Away from the event, reporters joked nervously about what retribution their news organizations might experience in the future. The Trump campaign created blacklists of reporters and news organizations barred from interviews. (BuzzFeed figured prominently.) And yet Trump wants the media's attention and craves its respect.

Trump's favorite media outlets depend on the vagaries of his mood. Among them one will likely find Breitbart News, the hard-line conservative site which heavily favored Trump during the GOP primaries. The site's former chairman, Steve Bannon, will be a top White House adviser to Trump. And Trump called on a Breitbart reporter during the news conference.

Other likely Trump favorites include the New York Post (to which he has given myriad scraps about his personal life over the years); Fox News (which has named Trump fan Tucker Carlson to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly); the National Enquirer (its parent company is run by a close Trump friend who authorized a $150,000 payment to a former Playboy model to quash the story of an affair, according to the Wall Street Journal) the New York Observer (owned by his son-in-law Jared Kushner until this month); perhaps even Trump-friendly RT, the Russian propagandist network which had a correspondent cheerfully bellowing its initials a few feet from me on Wednesday in hopes of being called on. As it happens, Trump did not call on him.

Yet Trump wants the established media's attention and craves its respect. He gives interviews to The New York Times, even when rejecting the premises of their questions. And he monitors cable coverage more than any TV news agent.

On Fox News Thursday evening, former New York City mayor, Fox News commentator and Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani hailed a new media age ushered in by Trump: "It is refreshing and it is very good for our democracy that we have a president that is trying to get us back to a free press."

Free to do what, one wonders.



I DON’T KNOW IF YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDER 65 WILL REMEMBER THE WATERGATE SCANDAL. JUST LIKE HILLARY’S EMAIL STORIES, THERE WAS A NEW ISSUE EMERGING EVERY DAY. IT WAS THE MOST EXCITING AND SHOCKING PERIOD IN MY LIFE. IF YOU THINK THIS ELECTION HAS BEEN FEEDING TIME IN THE SHARK TANKS, GO TO THE INTERNET AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY YOUTUBE TAPES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO WATCH ABOUT “WATERGATE.” TRUMP IS PRETTY BAD SO FAR, BUT HE CAN’T HOLD A TORCH TO RICHARD NIXON. HE WAS WIDELY KNOWN AS “TRICKY DICKY,” AND WAS ABOUT TO BE IMPEACHED, WITH GREAT STURM UND DRANG, WHEN HE VOLUNTARILY STEPPED DOWN FROM THE PRESIDENCY. I AM GRATEFUL FOR THAT. I HOPE FOR THE SAME THING TO HAPPEN AGAIN THIS TIME, ALSO. CROSSING MY FINGERS!