April 3 and 4, 2017


News and Views


REMEMBER THE WOMAN WAS IN THE BUSH ERA, WHO WAS UNCEREMONIOUSLY “UNMASKED” TO A NEWS REPORTER, ROBERT NOVAK, WHO THEN PUBLISHED IT IN THE NEWS? SEE: THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON JUDITH MILLER. THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE VALERIE PLAME WILSON, A COVERT CIA AGENT, WAS UNMASKED TO A FOX NEWS REPORTER, KNOWN TO US “BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS,” FOR HIS PERSONAL MALEVOLENCE. HE THEN PUBLISHED THE INFORMATION WITHOUT PERMISSION. OF COURSE, THAT WAS A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION, SO IT DOESN’T MATTER.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/susan-rice-says-unmasking-of-names-wasnt-for-political-purposes/
Susan Rice says unmasking of names wasn't for political purposes
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS April 4, 2017, 1:03 PM

President Obama’s former national security adviser Susan Rice indicated Tuesday that the unmasking of Americans’ identities in certain U.S. intelligence reports was not done for political purposes.

In an interview on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Rice was asked to address allegations that she had used U.S. intelligence for political purposes by unmasking certain names of Americans.

Trump donor reportedly established private communication with Putin confidant
Play VIDEO
Trump donor reportedly established private communication with Putin confidant

“The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes. That’s absolutely false,” Rice said.

Asked if she sought the names of people or unmasked people involved in the Trump transition in order to spy on them or expose them, Rice said, “Absolutely not for any political purposes -- to spy, expose, anything.”

Rice also denied being the person who leaked the identity of Michael Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser: “I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would.”

As Obama’s national security adviser, Rice said her job was to protect the American people and in order to do that, she said she received a compilation of intelligence reports every morning from the intelligence community to provide her team with the best information about what was going on around the world.

“There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to, name not provided, just U.S. person,” Rice said. “Sometimes, in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request that information as to who that U.S. official was.”

2016-11-22t201644z-1596528313-ht1ecbm1kbfng-rtrmadp-3-usa-obama.jpg
U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice heads to her seat before a ceremony awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to various recipients in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., Nov. 22, 2016. REUTERS

Rice described a hypothetical example of a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American who was proposing to sell them high-tech bomb-making equipment. As national security adviser, she said it would be important to know whether it was a “kook” who doesn’t actually have the equipment versus a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology.

“When that occurred, what I would do -- or what any official would do -- is to ask their briefer whether the intelligence community could go through its process -- and there’s a long-standing established process -- and decide whether that information as to who that identity of the U.S. person was could be provided to me,” she said. “The intelligence community made the determination as to whether or not the identity of that American individual could be provided to me.”

Rice said that when the unmasking of an American was requested by her or a senior national security official, it would only come back to the person who requested the information and was not typically broadly disseminated within the national security community.

“The notion that, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of an American person, that is the same as leaking it, is completely false,” she said. “There’s no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking.”

Rice categorically denied the president’s claim from a month ago that Obama ordered a wiretapping of Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign -- an allegation she said “shocked” her.

“Absolutely false,” she said when asked if there was any truth to it. “The intelligence community, the director of the FBI, has made it very clear. There was no such collection, surveillance on Trump Tower or Trump individuals.”



WHY IS IT THAT SO MANY TRUMP DONORS AND FOLLOWERS ARE ON THE BORDER OF BEING, THEMSELVES, VIOLENT OR ARE OPENLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT? I SIMPLY CAN’T FORGET THE TORTURE THAT WAS DONE BY BLACKWATER WORKERS UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF CIA AGENTS. PEOPLE WHO TRY TO SAY THAT IS “THE AMERICAN WAY” ARE TRULY PERVERSE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-trump-donor-blackwater-founder-erik-prince-in-secret-meeting-with-russian-close-to-putin/
Report: Trump donor, Blackwater founder Erik Prince in secret meeting with Russian close to Putin
CBS/AP April 4, 2017, 5:25 AM

Play VIDEO -- Former Trump associates volunteer to appear before House Intel Committee


WASHINGTON – The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between an American businessman supporting then President-elect Trump and a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and the incoming president, The Washington Post reports.

Citing U.S., European and Arab officials, the Post said the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions. The full agenda remains unclear, the newspaper said.

The meeting took place nine days before Mr. Trump’s inauguration and involved businessman Erik Prince, the Post reported. Prince, the founder of the security firm Blackwater and now the head of the Hong Kong-based company Frontier Services Group, has ties to Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon and is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the meeting in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean as part of the broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Mr. Trump, the Post reported. The FBI declined to comment, the newspaper said.

The officials said Prince presented himself as an unofficial envoy for the president-elect to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, the Post reported. The officials did not identify the Russian.

Prince was a high-dollar campaign donor - he and his family reportedly gave more than $10 million to GOP candidates and super PACs in 2016 - and was a frequent critic of both President Obama and Mr. Trump’s opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton. Prince gave more than $200,000 to the Trump campaign, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett.

In response to the Post story, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said, “We are not aware of any meetings,” and a Prince spokesman said the meeting “had nothing to do with President Trump.” Both said Prince had no role in the Trump transition.

A Russian publication quotes Putin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov as calling the Post report “complete nonsense.”

Separately, court filings first reported on by BuzzFeed News show a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign met with a Russian intelligence operative in 2013 and provided him documents about the energy industry.

The Russian, Victor Podobnyy, was one of three men charged in connection with a Cold War-style Russian spy ring. According to the court documents, Podobnyy tried to recruit Carter Page, an energy consultant working in New York at the time, as an intelligence source. Page is referred to in the filing as “Male-1.”

Page briefly served as a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign, though he split from the campaign before the election and the White House says the president has no relationship with him. He’s among the Trump associates under scrutiny as the FBI and congressional committees investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Page acknowledged in a statement Monday night that he “shared basic immaterial information and publicly available research documents” with Podobnyy. He described the information as “nothing more than a few samples from the far more detailed lectures” he delivered at New York University in 2013.

Mr. Trump has vigorously denied that he or his associates were in contact with Russia during the election. He’s blasted the focus on his possible Russia ties as a “ruse” and has insisted that the real story is the leaking of information to the media and allegations that he and his associates were improperly surveilled by the Obama administration.

“The real story turns out to be SURVEILLANCE and LEAKING! Find the leakers,” Mr. Trump tweeted Monday morning.

Page’s contacts with Podobnyy happened about three years before Mr. Trump listed him as a foreign policy adviser to the campaign. Mr. Trump and his advisers have been vague about how Page became connected with the campaign.

The court filings include a transcript of Podobnyy speaking with Igor Sporyshev, who was also charged in the spy ring, about Page.

“I like that he takes on everything,” Podobnyy says. “For now, his enthusiasm works for me. I also promised him a lot.”


THESE COUNTRIES, THE “STANS,” ARE EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT TO THE US AS EUROPE, BUT NOT NEARLY AS WELL KNOWN. FOR SIMPLE INTEREST VALUE, I THINK MOST READERS WILL ENJOY THIS ONE, AND FOR KEEPING UP WITH WHAT RUSSIA IS GOING THROUGH ESPECIALLY, OF COURSE.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/st-petersburg-subway-bomb-5-things-know-about-central-asia-n742436
St. Petersburg Subway Bomb: 5 Things to Know About Central Asia
by NICK BAILEY
APR 4 2017, 12:22 PM ET

Image: A 12-metre tall gold-plated statue of the first Turkmen president Saparmurat Niyazo
Photograph -- A 40-foot gold-plated statue of the first Turkmen president Saparmurat Niyazov. Valery Sharifulin / TASS via Getty Images
Play Video -- Russian subway attack: Suspect identified, death toll climbs to 14 2:34
Image: A woman walks past a board displaying a portrait of Turkmenistan's President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov. Aman Mehinli / Reuters



LONDON — The threat of terrorism in Russia, such as the subway attack that investigators believe was carried out by a Kyrgyzstan-born suicide bomber, has the thrown a global spotlight on Central Asia's former Soviet republics.

Here's what to know about the region and why experts are warning of a growing threat from impoverished and mainly Muslim areas.

What are the 'stans'?

Once part of the Soviet Union, the republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan declared independence from the collapsing Communist U.S.S.R. between August and December 1991 and joined the United Nations in March 1992.

Nearly 70 million people live in the five nations — often referred to simply as the "stans" — which are bordered by Russia, Afghanistan, China and Iran.

They're poor and struggling

Three of the five nations have a GDP of less than $2,200 per capita compared with $53,000 in the U.S., according to the International Monetary Fund. Many young people cross the border in search of work — particularly to Russia, where incomes are often several times higher than at home.

Islamic extremism is on the rise

In the most recent census, over 80 percent of people in the region identified as Muslim. Yet the countries are largely run by former Communist party bosses with no significant religious affiliations. According to experts, the regimes often drive moderate and transparent Muslim organizations underground, allowing more extreme and radical groups to fill the gap.

Facing a life in low-paying jobs, young Central Asians often find the propaganda of Islamist militant groups hard to resist, said David Lewis, an expert on Central Asia with the University of Exeter in England.

"There has been a significant amount of very effective Russian-language ISIS propaganda targeting Muslims based in Russia," he said. "Millions from the Central Asia region come to Russia to work in oilfields, construction sites and factories and are a big migrant force for the Russian economy, but they are often treated poorly by local authorities and have been a target of racist attacks and exploitation."

U.S. intelligence sources told NBC last year there were up to 2,000 Central Asians fighting for ISIS in Syria and Iraq, with thousands more in Afghanistan with organizations such as the Taliban-affiliated Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

In the most high profile case in the region, the former chief of Tajikistan's riot police, Gulmurod Khalimov disappeared in 2015 and resurfaced in an ISIS propaganda video pledging to kill Americans.

Limited political and religious freedoms

Despite the breakup of the Soviet Union, the "stans" do not enjoy widespread political freedoms. Kazakhstan has had the same leader since 1991, with President Nursultan Nazarbayev receiving 98 percent of the vote in 2015 elections. Uzbekistan's leadership only changed last year with the death of President Islam Karimov after 25 years in power. Both were former Communist party bosses.

In Uzbekistan, almost 13,000 Muslims have been jailed over the past 25 years for their religious convictions, according to local rights organization, Initiative Group of Independent Human Rights Defenders. The Turkmenistan regime is described by Human Rights Watch as "extremely repressive" with "harsh restrictions on media and religious freedoms."

Kyrgyzstan, where the suspect in the St. Petersburg subway attack was born, has witnessed the overthrow of two autocratic regimes in 12 years.

A complex relationship with Russia

Russia insists that what happens in these countries is none of its business but the increased threat of terror attacks could quickly change that. Russia has an airbase in Kyrgyzstan, its biggest foreign military base of some 8,000 troops is in Tajikistan, and the "stans" are keen to retain good relations.

"Russia's ideal scenario is for the governments in the region to control their own backyards, but there is always a danger of an overreaction from Russian authorities," says Lewis. "After its involvement in Syria, Russia is now right up there with the United States as a target for ISIS and Russia has some serious security issues to face in the region."



I’M SURE THE FREE COLLEGE PLAN AT STATE UNIVERSITIES WILL NOT BE PASSED AT THIS TIME, BUT HE IS SAYING WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID, AND THERE IS A STRONG BACKING IN THE PUBLIC FOR HIS GOALS. WE JUST CAN’T “GENTRIFY” THIS SOCIETY FROM THE TOP DOWN, AS RONALD REAGAN PUSHED (AS THOUGH IT MADE SENSE), BUT FROM THE BOTTOM UP. SO, IT’S FREE AND GOOD QUALITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND ENOUGH FOOD, CLOTHING, AND ALL THOSE OTHER PEACE AND MENTAL HEALTH CREATING THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE FINANCING, RATHER THAN BIG FEDERAL GIVEAWAYS TO INDUSTRIALISTS WHO ALREADY HAVE PLENTY! WE DO, OF COURSE, NEED TO SPEND ON MILITARY THINGS, BUT IF WE DON’T INCLUDE REPLACING THE BROKEN DOWN BRIDGES AND ROADWAYS THAT FUEL OUR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY, WE WILL HAVE A CONSTANTLY INCREASING SET OF PROBLEMS AS A RESULT; AND BESIDES THOSE BIG PROJECTS DO CREATE JOBS, MR. TRUMP!!

Bernie Sanders Just Introduced His Free College Tuition Plan
Joining with Elizabeth Warren, Sanders wants students to organize around the legislation.
By George ZornickTwitter
YESTERDAY APRIL 3, 2017 6:04 PM

Photograph -- Bernie Sanders. (AP Photo / Charlie Neibergall)
RELATED ARTICLE -- WHY I INTRODUCED THE COLLEGE FOR ALL ACT, Pramila Jayapal


President Donald Trump doesn’t appear willing nor interested in addressing astronomical student debt levels, which long since crested above $1 trillion. In fact, his administration has made it easier for for-profit colleges to rip off students, and recently scrapped Obama-era regulations that limited rates loan guarantee agencies can charge people who defaulted on student loans. His budget also proposed cutting $5 billion in higher education funding for low-income Americans. Perhaps that’s not surprising from a president who just finalized a $25 million settlement stemming from his scam for-profit university.

That’s a financial tragedy for the millions who hold student loan debt and the students who will matriculate while Trump is president. But Trump’s unwillingness to even motion towards a student debt plan creates a massive political opening for Democrats.

Senator Bernie Sanders stepped into that breach Monday afternoon, introducing a bill with Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representatives Keith Ellison, and several other members of Congress. The ‘College For All’ Act which aims to eliminate college tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities for students from families that make up to $125,000 per year. The bill would make community college tuition-free for all income levels.

Clearly the bill will go nowhere in a Republican Congress, and with Trump in the White House. But Sanders and several of the co-sponsors clearly see the bill as a valuable organizing tool. “Our job is to bring forward a progressive agenda,” said Sanders. “Our job now is to go out in every state in this country…. We can win this fight when millions of Americans stand up and demand this legislation.”

“We need organized events at every college campus across the country,” said Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Sanders-backed candidate who ran last year on a pledge to introduce this bill in the House.

One year ago today, tuition-free college was a catalyst of Sanders’ presidential campaign, where he captured close to three-quarters of the under-35 vote during the primary. The ‘College For All’ Act is substantially the same as his campaign plan, though the income cut-off is new. Hillary Clinton frequently assailed the Sanders plan’s lack of an income limit, often offering some variation of the line that “I don’t think taxpayers should be paying to send Donald Trump’s kids to college,” as she said during one debate.

When Clinton released an updated tuition plan after the primary was over, it borrowed many of Sanders’ subsidized tuition elements, but also had a $125,000 income threshold. This is essentially what Sanders is now proposing, though Clinton’s proposal made the initial cutoff $85,000 per year and raised it incrementally to $125,000. The ‘College for All’ Act starts at $125,000 outright. (This is similar to a plan New York Governor Andrew Cuomo introduced this year, which Sanders also backed.)

The Act would have the government pay 67 percent of tuition subsidies at public colleges and universities, while asking state and tribal governments to pay the other third. Sanders’ office pegs the cost of the legislation at $600 billion, and it would be financed by a tax on Wall Street speculation.

The legislation also weaves in several other progressive higher-education proposals. It ends the federal government’s ability to profit from student loans—any excess revenue would be plowed back into Pell Grants under the legislation. “It is obscene that the United States government is making a profit off the backs of people who are trying to get an education,” said Warren, who has railed against the revenue excesses for years.

It would also allow students to refinance existing loans at low rates, and would cut the government lending rate for new undergraduate borrowers to 1.88 percent.

The United States Students Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association and other groups have endorsed the legislation, and might be helpful in organizing support going forward.

There are five Senate co-sponsors for the bill (Warren, Kamala Harris, Richard Blumenthal, Chris Murphy and Kirsten Gillibrand) and fourteen in the House, including Ellison, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus and deputy DNC chair.

That count alone shows the political momentum behind this issue. When Sanders introduced a similar bill in 2015, it had zero co-sponsors.



THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE HAS A GREAT DEAL OF UNFORTUNATE TRUTH IN IT, AND MUCH AS I HATE TO CRITICIZE SANDERS IN GENERAL, I AGREE THAT ALL LEFTIST AMERICAN POLITICIANS SHOULD BEWARE OF SEEMING TO SIDE EMOTIONALLY WITH EITHER THE WEALTHY OR THE MERITOCRACY, BECAUSE WE BASICALLY FEEL TOO OFTEN THAT IT IS A MATTER OF “THE UNDERCLASS’” POSSESSING A RELATIVE LACK OF EDUCATION OR INTELLIGENCE, AND, FOR WANT OF ANOTHER TERM, SOCIAL POLISH AND “RESPECTABILITY,” (PROSTITUTES, IMBECILES, CRIMINALS AND DRUG ADDICTS), WHICH IS THE REAL PROBLEM THAT KEEPS THE LOWER CLASSES DOWN. IN OTHER WORDS, IT’S NOT MY PROBLEM, AND WE ALL DESERVE WHATEVER WE GET. THE FACT IS, HOWEVER, THAT WITH SKIN THAT BROWN TO BLACK COLOR THEY WILL HAVE TO FIGHT VERY HARD TO MAKE IT TO THE TOP, AND EVEN WHEN THEY DO THEY BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE USA THEY WILL BE PUBLICLY SCORNED IN GROTESQUE RACIST WAYS.

WE WHITE LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVES WHO ARE ALL SOMEWHAT ELITIST UNLESS WE TRULY DID GROW UP POOR, TEND NOT TO LOOK AT RACE AND ETHNICITY AS THE MAIN PROBLEM, BUT ONE OF “INFERIORITY;” WHILE BLACKS AND ETHNIC MINORITIES AND POOR WHITES TEND TO LOOK AT RACE AND POVERTY ALONE AS THEIR PROBLEM, RATHER THAN TO FACE THE LEVEL OF SELF-IMPROVEMENT THAT THEY DO NEED TO ACHIEVE IN ORDER TO BE WIDELY ACCEPTED IN A CLASS-BASED SOCIETY AND, DAUNTED, THEY DENY THE SITUATION. THERE IS, HOWEVER, A CLASS DISTINCTION THAT IS BASED ON A PERCEIVED GENERAL INFERIORITY, FOR ALL THOSE POOR PEOPLE WHO CAN’T BREAK OUT OF THE POVERTY TRAP, AND WE WHO ARE WHITE, NOT MENTALLY CHALLENGED OR DRUG ADDICTS, DO IN FACT GET “WHITE PRIVILEGE” REGARDLESS OF OUR INCOME LEVEL. SOMETIMES THAT MEANS NOT BEING SHOT. REPUBLICANS AND MANY DEMOCRATS, EVEN IF THEY AREN’T WEALTHY DO TEND TO CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE AT THEIR PARTICULAR ELEVATION ON THE GREAT UPWARD BOUND LADDER BECAUSE THEY’RE SUPERIOR, NOT LUCKY.

MOST LIBERALS ARE, AS OUR POLITICAL ENEMIES DELIGHT IN CALLING US, “TREEHUGGERS,” AND “BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS,” SO WE WANT THE POOR TO BE WELL FED AND WELL EDUCATED AS LONG AS THE MONEY FOR IT DOESN’T COME OUT OF OUR OWN POCKETS, AND AS LONG AS THE ECONOMIC DIVIDE DOESN’T GO AWAY ENTIRELY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE EQUALITY. COMPETITION AND THE CONCEITED LACK OF EMPATHY THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT, IS BUILT INTO WESTERN SOCIETY. THAT ISN’T TO SAY THAT IT ISN’T COMMONPLACE WHEREVER HUMANS DWELL, OF COURSE. WE’RE A VERY QUARRELSOME LOT. WE CAN HARDLY ESCAPE UNFAIRNESS, EVEN WITHIN OUR HIGHLY ETHICAL SELVES.

WE NEED MORE AS MEMBERS OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY THAN JUST BEING RELATIVELY ETHICAL, BUT ALSO TO BECOME “SENSITIVE” AND EMPATHETIC. SOME OF THE MOST SENSITIVE AND EMPATHETIC PEOPLE I HAVE KNOWN HAVE BEEN CATHOLICS AND JEWS. THOSE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUFFERED AS A GROUP, AND CONTINUE TO SUFFER TODAY IN OUR WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT SOCIETY TODAY. A MAN I KNEW IN AA WHO KEPT FALLING OFF THE WAGON TIME AFTER TIME SAID THAT HIS AA SPONSOR TOLD HIM, “THE PROBLEM WITH YOU IS THAT YOU JUST HAVEN’T SUFFERED ENOUGH.” WE DO LEARN HUMILITY AND EMPATHY FROM SUFFERING.

OUR RELATIVE GENEROSITY TO THE POOR AS LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVES ALSO DOESN’T ALWAYS MEAN THAT WE RESPECT “OUR INFERIORS” ANY MORE THAN “THE UPPER CRUST” DO, HOWEVER. I THINK THE PERSONAL COMFORT THAT WE DO DERIVE FROM OUR PARTICULAR POSITIONS OF SAFETY IN THE FINANCIAL WORLD – WE OWN A HOUSE, WE WENT TO COLLEGE, WE HAVE A GOOD RETIREMENT FUND, WE CAN AFFORD GOOD CLOTHING, WE HAVE A COLLEGE PROFESSORSHIP -- IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE AS CAUGHT UP IN THE WHOLE CLASS SYSTEM AS ARE THOSE TWO EXTREMES AT EITHER END, THE TRULY WEALTHY AND THE VERY POOR. WE ARE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, PRETTY SMUG IF WE’RE WHITE TOO MANY TIMES. THAT’S WHO BERNIE SANDERS IS SPEAKING OF AS “THE WEALTHY ELITE,” AND THOUGH THE WELL PLACED COLLEGE PROFESSORS PROBABLY DON’T OWN YACHTS, THEY DO OWN A LEVEL OF GOODIES THAT MOST PEOPLE WILL NEVER SEE IN THEIR LIVES.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THOSE PARTICULAR WHITE PEOPLE -- NOT JUST THE BILLIONAIRES’ CLUB – ALSO NEED TO PAY THAT HIGHER TAX RATE AND PUT MORE INTO THE NATIONAL PIE FOR SMOOTHING OUT THE VAST AND GROWING WEDGE BETWEEN THE VERY POOR, THE WORKING CLASS, AND JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE. THAT’S BECAUSE THEY HAVE MUCH MORE THAN THEY “NEED,” TO HEALTHY AND REASONABLY COMFORTABLE. WE WHO DID GET A 4 TO 8 YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE SHOULD, EVERY WEEK OR SO AT LEAST, ACKNOWLEDGE OUR GOOD FORTUNE, OUR MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH, OUR RELIABLE HOUSING AND FOOD, AND OUR ”BLING” OF ALL KINDS, AS NOT BEING DUE MERELY TO OUR PERSONAL PROWESS AND VIRTUE.

I AGREE WITH THIS WRITER THAT IT WOULD BE MORE TO THE POINT POLITICALLY FOR US LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES TO BLAME THE WEALTHY ROBBER BARONS, BUT IT IS A SIMPLE FACT THAT THE 50 THOU A YEAR DIFFERENCE, BETWEEN THE WORKING CLASS WITH FAMILIES WITH TWO GOOD FACTORY JOBS, FOR INSTANCE, AND THE “LIBERAL ELITE,” IN WHICH I INCLUDE DOCTORS, LAWYERS, COLLEGE PROFESSORS, COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS, ETC., IS AT LEAST AS SIGNIFICANT A FACTOR IN FORMING THEIR PERSONAL AND SOCIAL ATTITUDES, AS IS THAT BETWEEN THE “WORKING CLASS,” AND THE TRULY VERY WEALTHY.

THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF LIBERALS THAT I’M REFERRING TO ARE MAINLY ELITE IN THEIR OWN EYES. IT IS TRUE THAT EDUCATION HELPS SOME PEOPLE GAIN THAT INNER PERSPECTIVE AND INCREASED TRUE GENTILITY THAT I, PERSONALLY, THINK WE ALL SHOULD TRY TO INCORPORATE INTO OUR WORLDVIEW. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS A LARGE NUMBER OF HIGHLY COMPETITIVE AND SIMPLY CONCEITED PEOPLE IN THAT BRACKET WHO ARE NO MORE VIRTUOUS MENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY THAN ARE THE VERY WEALTHY, IN THAT THEY FLAUNT THEIR “SUPERIORITY” EVERY CHANCE THEY GET, AND OPPRESS THE POOR FREELY.

WHEN BERNIE SANDERS SPEAKS OF THE FACT THAT A DANGEROUSLY LARGE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS HAVE MOVED RIGHTWARD AS A GROUP IN THE PARTY’S POLITICAL STRUCTURE, ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO THEIR MOST BASIC NATURAL SUPPORTER GROUP IN THE AMERICAN POPULATION AS A WHOLE, THE POOR AND THE WORKING CLASS, HE IS, YES, BLAMING THEM FOR THEIR LACK OF PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE TRUE NEEDS OF OUR COUNTRY ARE. THEY ARE NOW THE NOUVEAU RICHE – THE WANNABEES OF THE BILLIONAIRE CLUB. EVERYBODY SHOULD WATCH “THE UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN” EVERY FEW YEARS TO KEEP OUR SOCIETY HUMBLE.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS INDEED FULL OF “WEALTHY ELITISTISTS” NOW, WHO HAVE NO ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WHO DON’T SEND THEIR KIDS TO EUROPE AFTER HIGH SCHOOL, EVEN IF THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE STUDIED HARD AND EXCELLED IN SCHOOL. THOSE KIDS ARE THE ONES WHO WILL STILL HAVE TO “WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH SCHOOL (COLLEGE),” BUY VERY MODEST THINGS UNTIL THEY CAN AFFORD MORE EXPENSIVE GOODS AND SERVICES ON THEIR OWN, AND EVEN THOSE WHO ARE MERELY COMFORTABLY MIDDLE CLASS WILL STILL SPEAK DISRESPECTFULLY OF THOSE “BELOW THEM.” INCOMES LIKE $40,000 AND $20,000 ARE BOTH BETTER THAN $15,000 OR LESS, BUT THEY BEAR LITTLE RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER, ESPECIALLY WITH TOO MANY CHILDREN OR A SEVERE ILLNESS THAT BANKRUPTS THE FAMILY. LET’S FACE IT. WE REALLY AREN’T VERY NICE SOCIETY IN TOO MANY INSTANCES.

IF WE, AS A PEOPLE, COULD JUST STOP MEASURING EVERY INDIVIDUAL ON A COMPARATIVE SCALE OF MERIT OF ANY TYPE BEFORE OPENING OUR HEARTS AND MINDS TO THEM – WHICH IS WHAT I THINK “LOVING OUR NEIGHBORS AS OURSELVES” MEANS -- WE WOULD BE WORTHY OF THE WORDS “CHRISTIAN” AND “DEMOCRAT,” AND HILLARY CLINTON WOULDN’T HAVE LOST THE RACE TO A MAN WHO IS REALLY NOT UP TO BEING PRESIDENT. SHE MADE THE MISTAKE OF LETTING HER FEELINGS TOWARD THE POOR SHOW. IT’S THAT SCORN THAT HURT HER MOST. THE “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES” WAS AN EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE PHRASE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE WORKING POOR WERE DONALD TRUMP’S LARGEST POLITICAL SUPPORT GROUP, WHEN THEY SHOULD BE THAT OF THE DEMOCRATS. IF THE DEMOCRATS HADN’T STARTED COURTING THE BIG BUCKS DONORS, RATHER THAN THE UNIONS AND FARMERS AND THE POOR IN GENERAL, WE WOULDN’T HAVE LOST OUT AS WE DID IN 2016. PERHAPS WE SHOULD BE CALLING THAT EVENT, “THE GREAT DISASTER.” IF DO BELIEVE THAT’S WHAT IT WAS, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE IT’S OUR OWN FAULT.

https://newrepublic.com/article/141828/bernie-sanderss-misguided-attacks-liberal-elite
Bernie Sanders’s Misguided Attacks on the “Liberal Elite”
Rather than highlighting class differences, the phrase beclouds them.
BY NOAH BERLATSKY
April 4, 2017

“We need a Democratic Party that is not a party of the liberal elite but of the working class of this country,” Senator Bernie Sanders declared at a rally in Boston last week. This has become a very common refrain for Sanders specifically and the progressive left generally. After the election, Nation editor at large D.D. Guttenplan declared that liberal elites who spurned populism are responsible for President Donald Trump, while Chris Hedges argued last month that Trump’s greatest allies are, unwittingly, liberal elites.

“The elites, who live in enclaves of privilege in cities such as New York, Washington and San Francisco, scold an enraged population,” he wrote at Truthdig. “They tell those they dismiss as inferiors to calm down, be reasonable and patient and trust in the goodness of the old ruling class and the American system.”

Those damn liberal elites! They sip Starbucks in their Priuses while headed to a Harvard lecture about Hollywood film—or to the Hollywood set of a film about Harvard. These corrupt effete meritocrats are the truly powerful ones in America. May populism rise up and destroy them, so that inequality and smugness alike will vanish from the Earth.

But it’s worth asking: If all these full-throated attacks on liberal elitism ended with the ascension of a racist, sexist authoritarian who has a gross history of mistreating working people, then is attacking liberal elitism really the proper strategy for the opposition to Trump? Maybe the left should think about going back to attacking a more tried and true bugaboo: the wealthy.

Many on the left use “liberal elites” as a substitute for “wealthy,” of course, but it’s a confusing substitute, not least because rich people tend to be more conservative and to vote Republican, as they did in the last election. Meanwhile, bloated plutocrats like Trump, the Koch brothers, the Bushes, Carl Icahn, and Paul Ryan embrace openly regressive policies. And yet, pundits across the political spectrum hardly ever inveigh against the “conservative elite.”

Rather than highlighting class differences, the phrase “liberal elitism” beclouds them. In doing so, it plays into the very ideology of neoliberalism that leftists claim to hate.

Back before the French Revolution, conservatives used to defend inequity on the grounds of tradition, religion, or stability; kings and the nobility ruled by divine right. The rich had been granted their wealth by God, for the preservation of order and goodness. That myth has been replaced with new ones. Social Darwinism held that the robber barons scrambled to the top of the heap because they were the fittest and most worthy. Neoliberal ideology doesn’t rely on evolutionary trappings, but keeps the core point. For neoliberalism, class isn’t based on old money or heredity, but on meritocratic professionalism.

Neoliberal ideology maintains that the wealthy are wealthy because they are intelligent and work hard. Today’s upper class supposedly isn’t composed of bloated hereditary capitalists squatting on their parents’ wealth, but of dynamic go-getters like software genius, Bill Gates (whose family was wealthy) and real-estate genius, Donald Trump (whose family was also wealthy).

When conservatives sneer at liberal elites, their complaint is largely a cultural one. But when progressives do so, it’s an attack on meritocrats: They hate the “liberal elites” not for, say, demanding safe spaces on college campuses, but for believing their fancy college education makes them better than everyone else.

But in its base assumptions, the left’s use of the phrase “liberal elite” unintentionally agrees with the neoliberal vision. After all, if the truly powerful villains in American society are its technocrats and overachievers, then it would seem the plutocrats and nepotists have been dethroned. Taking their place for widespread derision are the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and New England professors and Hollywood actors and Acela corridor media pundits—people who, allegedly but not always in reality, got where they are through skill and commitment.

Some people in these liberal elite professions are quite well off and even wealthy. But there are also an awful lot of adjuncts and low-level coders and freelance writers out there barely scraping by, one health scare away from penury. Defining “elite” in terms of what job you do or, worse, where you live endorses the neoliberal view that capitalism has fundamentally changed in character, and that meritocrats have replaced capitalists in the corridors of power.

When journalist Chris Arnade, for insance, [sic] argues that Trump and Sanders represent the “revolt of the back row kids” against front-row types like Hillary Clinton, he’s analytically replacing divisions based on class with divisions based on paying attention in class. For Arnade, merit—doing well in school—replaces money as the fundamental organizer of social divisions. Arnade sympathizes with those who have lost out in neoliberalism, but he accepts neoliberalism’s account of how losers and winners are structured.

And yet, neoliberalism is a lie. As Thomas Piketty showed in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, hereditary wealth and the concentration of power today look a lot like they did in the eighteenth century; then as now, the surest way to get rich is by being born rich. Supposed meritocracy doesn’t change that dynamic. If anything, it compounds it. The wealthy once felt it was beneath them to work; now they eagerly take cushy CEO jobs for massive salaries, adding bloated income to bloated family fortune. The class enemy is the same as it’s always been.

The right uses “liberal elite” as a rhetorical distraction. When the left uses the phrase, it plays into the hands of those who want to obscure class lines. “Liberal elite” makes people think of Meryl Streep or their local college professor, when they should be directing their ire at Jamie Dimon, Peter Thiel, Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump. So forget “liberal elites.” Let’s start attacking the real enemy, using language that clarifies rather than obscures. They’re “the rich,” “the plutocrats,” “the wealthy.” Perhaps we should even revive a well-worn but still relevant epithet: “capitalist pigs.”

Noah Berlatsky is a contributing writer at The Atlantic, the editor of the comics and culture site the Hooded Utilitarian, and the author of Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism in the Marston/Peter Comics.



SHE’S JUST A LITTLE GIRL, BUT SHE’S ON THE TRACK OF TRUE CARING. CONGRATULATIONS, LAUREN.

http://www.today.com/parents/girl-makes-rocks-vandalized-graves-jewish-cemeteries-t109608
The amazing way one girl is fighting back against hatred, a stone at a time
Meghan Holohan, TODAY Contributor
April 4, 2017

Photograph -- Courtesy Rachelina Marshall Photo, Girl paints rocks to adorn desecrated Jewish tombstones.
RELATED: 'I wanted to help': Girl collects thousands of crayons for pediatric hospital

In February, Lauren Pearl Morgenstern was watching the news when a story about vandalism in Jewish cemeteries across the country aired. As the St. Louis-native watched, she spotted the last name Pearl, her maiden name, and wondered if the tombstone belonged to one of her relatives. She soon learned it belonged to Rebecca Pearl, her great-great-grandmother.

When her 6-year-old daughter, Ayel, discovered that people destroyed tombstones in Jewish cemeteries, she felt sad and wanted to comfort the families.

“I want to make the whole world feel better,” Ayel told TODAY.

Morgernstern asked her daughter what she wanted to do to help.

“I let her lead,” she said. "She keeps us on our toes."


THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT HAPPENS WHEN “CONSERVATIVES,” GET TOO MUCH POWER, ESPECIALLY ALL AT ONCE THROUGHOUT THE POLITICAL SPHERE IN A DEMOCRACY. TRUE TO THEIR REPUTATION, THEY FIGHT ANYTHING THAT ISN’T REPRESSIVE OF THE MOST CONVENIENT SCAPEGOATS, IN THE NAME OF “LAW AND ORDER,” OF COURSE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-sessions-seeks-delay-baltimore-police-reform/
Jeff Sessions seeks delay of hearing on police reform
By PAULA REID CBS NEWS April 3, 2017, 11:23 PM

Play VIDEO -- DOJ's civil rights chief discusses scathing Chicago police report


WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Jeff Sessions is signaling a major shift in the Justice Department’s efforts to reform police departments.

In a memo dated March 31, Sessions told U.S. attorneys that it is not the job of the federal government to police state and local law enforcement agencies.

“Local control and local accountability are necessary for effective local policing,” Sessions wrote.

This is a departure from the reforms undertaken by the Obama administration under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, who made local police department reform a priority of their Justice Departments.

Sessions is also calling for the deputy attorney general and associate attorney general to review all dealings with local law enforcement, including existing civil rights reform agreements, consent decrees, with police.

In Baltimore, the Justice Department is asking for a delay in Thursday’s hearing on the consent decree between DOJ and the Baltimore Police Department. This was supposed to be a hearing where the public would be able to express its thoughts on the agreement. It’s being seen as a potential sign that the new Justice Department could be backing away from the Obama-era reforms.

Sessions has been critical of consent decrees and pattern or practice investigations as a way to reform police. CBS News has asked whether this is a sign that Sessions will not follow through on agreed-upon reforms. The Justice Department says it just wants more time to review the consent decree.

It remains to be seen whether the judge in the Baltimore case will allow the case to be delayed. The mayor came out with a statement strongly opposing the Justice Department’s request for a delay in the hearing.

In Chicago, too, Sessions has not committed to following through with reforms. When asked about this by reporters, he had not even read the Justice Department’s report on the Chicago Police Department -- while still dismissing it as lacking evidence.

Sessions has long been critical of federally enforced reforms to police departments. He said he preferred collaborative reform, but this memo requires review of even collaborative reform efforts.



THIS IS SOMETHING I’VE HEARD BEFORE. IT IS A SIN AND A SHAME. WHAT ARE POLICE FOR, IF NOT FOR SITUATIONS LIKE THESE?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-asked-latina-herring-to-stop-calling-911-before-killing-sanford-florida/
Cops asked woman to stop calling 911 before AK-47 rampage, video shows
CBS/AP
April 3, 2017, 10:21 AM

Photograph -- Latina Herring and Allen Cashe WKMG
gofundme-photo-edited-1490736084285-9245100-ver1-0-1280-720.jpg,
Brendon and Branden Christian GOFUNDME

SANFORD, Fla. -- Police video shows officers responding to a call to a Florida home telling a woman to stop calling 911 to complain about her boyfriend hours before she and her son were fatally shot.

Police were called to the home on the morning of March 27 after an earlier 911 call from the woman’s boyfriend to a convenience store in the Orlando suburb of Sanford, WESH-TV reports. Video from a police bodycam shows an officer telling Latina Herring, “we’re going to handle it” and “stop calling 911 to make accusations you don’t know about.” Officers also say the couple were just arguing.

Authorities say that hours later, Herring and her 8-year-old son -- Branden Christian -- were killed by her boyfriend.

Child dies after AK-47 rampage that left mother dead, 4 others wounded

Allen Cashe is accused in the fatal shooting, in which four others were also injured, CBS affiliate stations reported. Police said Cashe went to Herring’s home with an AK-47 and shot Herring and Branden, as well as his grandfather and brother.

According to a police report, the boys were sleeping on the couch at home when they were shot three times, WKMG-TV reported. Police said Cashe must have been standing directly over them when he fired, according to WKMG-TV.

After leaving the house, Cashe then allegedly shot two innocent bystanders, including a high school student waiting for a bus. A witness at the bus stop told WKMG-TV that Cashe stopped and said, “I’m sorry, but y’all are gonna die,” before firing about 10 shots.

Sanford police didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.