JULY 31, 2017
NEWS AND VIEWS
COMPILATION AND COMMENTS
BY LUCY WARNER


SANDERS AND THE DEVELOPING PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT VS ALEC

BERNIE AND OTHER PROGRESSIVES ARE ON A ROLL. YESTERDAY’S "THE HILL" ARTICLE, UNFORTUNATELY, SAID THAT THE ONE PAYER SYSTEM “MEDICARE FOR ALL” HAS “DIVIDED DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS.” ABOUT THE TIME THAT BERNIE SANDERS CAME TO THE HEAD OF THE PROGRESSIVE PACK IN 2015 OR SO, I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEAR OLD DEMOCRATIC PARTY JUST DOESN’T STAND FOR THE LITTLE MAN ANYMORE. THERE ARE ALSO REPORTS THAT OUR DEMS ARE BEING FUNDED BY THE KOCHS AND OTHER HUGE MONEY ENTITIES, JUST AS THE REPUBLICANS ARE.

THE PROGRESSIVES, HOWEVER, DO CARE. AFTER THE 2016 COUP AGAINST SANDERS BY CLINTON AND THE MAINSTREAM DEMS, I KNEW IT FOR A CERTAINTY; SO, ON THE DAY I WENT TO THE POLLS IN 2016 TO VOTE ONE LAST TIME TO SAVE THE COUNTRY FROM THE RIGHTIST FORCES, I.E. VOTE FOR HILLARY, BLESS HER HEART, I THEN PROCEEDED TO THE REGISTRATION DESK AND REMOVED MY NAME FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ROLLS. I’M NOW A DECLARED INDEPENDENT, LIKE BERNIE. THE DEMS HAVE CALLED ME AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN TIMES ASKING FOR MONEY AND I JUST TELL THEM GENTLY AND LOVINGLY THAT I WON’T GIVE, AND WHY. I DID, ALSO, WRITE THEM A FOUR OR FIVE PARAGRAPH EMAIL AT THE DNC, DECLARING MY DECISION.

SEE THIS JULY 30, 2017 FROM THE HILL AND THE NEXT FROM COMMON DREAMS ON THE SURPRISING SUCCESS OF THE ONE PAYER PLAN, ACCORDING TO POLLING RESULTS AND SOME 100 DEMOCRATS IN THE FEDERAL LEGISLATURE.

AFTER THAT IS A PIECE THAT SPEAKS CLEARLY TO ME OF THE PATH IN WHICH WE NEED TO MOVE. THAT ARTICLE IS FROM A GROUP CALLED “NAKED CAPITALISM.COM.” IT GIVES A SUMMARY ON WHERE THE OUR REVOLUTION PROGRESSIVES ARE NOW, AND WHERE SANDERS HIMSELF IS. ALL OF THEIR ARTICLES ARE EXTREMELY TIMELY AND PERTINENT AS WELL. TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/344520-sanders-im-absolutely-introducing-single-payer-healthcare-bill
Sanders: I'm 'absolutely' introducing single-payer healthcare bill
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 07/30/17 10:42 AM EDT

Photograph -- Sen. Bernie Sanders (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Sunday that he will “absolutely” introduce legislation on single-payer healthcare now that the Senate GOP’s bill to repeal ObamaCare has failed.

“Of course we are, we’re tweaking the final points of the bill and we’re figuring out how we can mount a national campaign to bring people together,” Sanders told Jake Tapper on CNN’s State of the Union.

Sanders promised to introduce a “Medicare for All” proposal once the debate over repealing ObamaCare ended. He is one of several progressive lawmakers who back the healthcare model that has divided Democratic lawmakers.

It’s unclear exactly when he will introduce the legislation. The Senate has two weeks remaining in sessions.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) attached an amendment to one version of the ObamaCare repeal bill Wednesday that would have created a single-payer healthcare system in the U.S. Daines does not support a single-payer system but used the model as a political maneuver.

Sanders’s spokesman slammed the amendment as a “sham” at the time and said Sanders and other Democrats would refuse to vote on the measure.


PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/04/26/medicare-all-bill-reaches-record-breaking-104-co-sponsors-congress
'Medicare for All' Bill Reaches a Record-Breaking 104 Co-Sponsors in Congress
Majority of House Democrats now support single-payer health plan
Wednesday, April 26, 2017 - 5:45pm

Organization Profile:
Physicians for a National Health Program
Contact:
Clare Fauke, Communications Specialist,
(312) 782-6006
clare@pnhp.org

WASHINGTON - Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a group of 21,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals, announced today that H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act has reached a record number of co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, now totalling 104.

H.R. 676 was introduced in January by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), and has rapidly gained support from members across the country, adding 28 new co-sponsors in April alone. The bill would yield about $500 billion annually in administrative savings and provide immediate coverage to the 26 million Americans who are currently uninsured, achieving President Trump’s campaign promises of more coverage, better benefits and lower costs.

“Americans are fed up with an inhumane, profit-driven health system that leaves millions without care,” said Dr. Carol Paris, president of PNHP. “Quality health care is not a luxury, nor is it a commodity that can be bought and sold in a marketplace. It is a social good that can be best delivered through a single-payer national health program."

Demands for a national single-payer health plan dominated town hall meetings during the spring congressional recess. PNHP members have contributed to this upswing in activism by calling, writing and visiting their representatives, asking them to co-sponsor H.R. 676 for the benefit of patients, physicians, and the broader economy.

“Gallup, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and other polling organizations have found that there is majority support for Medicare for All in America today,” said Rep. Conyers in a recent editorial in the Detroit Free Press. Thanks to this groundswell, he said, "Single payer is politically achievable."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has also announced plans to introduce a Medicare for all bill in the senate next month.

"The momentum towards a universal health program is unstoppable," added Dr. Paris. "Americans of all political stripes are reiterating their long-held support for improved Medicare for all, and Congress has a responsibility to act. We urge all members—including Republicans, whose constituents are demanding a better health care system—to come together and finally enact H.R. 676. Now is the time."

###
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.

Organization Links
Physicians for a National Health Program
PNHP (Press Center)
PNHP (Action Center)


ABOUT H.R. BILL 676

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act
United States National Health Care Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the 2010 health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama, see Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The United States National Health Care Act, or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676) is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative John Conyers (D-MI).[1] The bill had 49 cosponsors in 2015. As of July 17, 2017, it had 115 cosponsors,[2] which amounts to a majority of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives and is the highest level of support the bill has ever received since Conyers began annually introducing the bill in 2003.[3]

The act would establish a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare and Taiwan's Bureau of National Health Insurance, among other examples. Under a single-payer system, most medical care would be paid for by the Government of the United States, ending the need for private health insurance and premiums, and probably recasting private insurance companies as providing purely supplemental coverage, to be used when non-essential care is sought.

The national system would be paid for in part through taxes replacing insurance premiums, but also by savings realized through the provision of preventative universal healthcare and the elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs.[4] An analysis of the bill by Physicians for a National Health Program estimated the immediate savings at $350 billion per year.[5] Others have estimated a long-term savings amounting to 40% of all national health expenditures due to preventative health care.[6] Preventative care can save several hundreds of billions of dollars per year in the U.S., because for example cancer patients are more likely to be diagnosed at Stage I where curative treatment is typically a few outpatient visits, instead of at Stage III or later in an emergency room where treatment can involve years of hospitalization and is often terminal.[7]

The bill was first introduced in 2003,[8] when it had 25 cosponsors, and has been reintroduced in each Congress since. During the 2009 health care debates over the bill that became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 676 was expected to be debated and voted upon by the House in September 2009,[9] but was never debated.[10]

The bill was introduced again recently by Rep. Conyers in the House of Representatives. Senator Bernie Sanders has said that he intends to introduce a parallel bill in the United States Senate in the future. [11][12]



I FOUND MYSELF STUCK TODAY IN THE WEBPAGE OF COMMON DREAMS, SO I’VE INCLUDED A NUMBER OF THEIR OTHERS ON PROGRESSIVE SUBJECTS BELOW, FROM DISABLING LOCAL USE OF ENERGY PRODUCTION SUCH AS SOLAR ON CITIZENS’ HOUSETOPS TO ATTEMPTS TO QUASH STATE RULES MANDATING TRANSPARENCY ON THE VAST GULF BETWEEN CEO AND WORKER PAY. I AM SO IMPRESSED, I HAVE DONATED A SMALL AMOUNT TO COMMON DREAMS FOR THEIR USE AND TO SEND ME A DAILY REPORT OF NEW INFORMATION. FOR SUCH ALT-RIGHT STATE LAWS, SEE THE DAVID KOCH ORGANIZATION’S “THINK TANK,” CALLED ALEC, AT:

ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com/article/alec-exposed-koch-connection/
Jul 12, 2011 - This article is part of a Nation series exposing the American Legislative Exchange Council, in collaboration with the Center For Media and Democracy. ... ALEC gave the Kochs its Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award, and Koch Industries has been one of the select members of ALEC’s ...


IS IT SINGLE PAYER TIME? BERNIE SAYS HE’LL GIVE IT A GO, AND HE APPARENTLY IS ALMOST READY TO DO IT. THE SECOND COMMON DREAMS ARTICLE BELOW STATES THAT 104 DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ARE BEHIND IT.



THIS MARCH 12 ARTICLE FROM NAKED CAPITALISM IS A GOOD THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF WHAT IS COMING INTO BEING IN THE MODERN PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT. BY THE WAY, THE “PROGRESSIVE PARTIES” OF BOB LAFOLLETTE AND TEDDY ROOSEVELT AREN’T THE SAME THINGS, NOR IS THE MODERN LEFTWARD DRIFT WHICH IS BEING CALLED “PROGRESSIVE” LINKED. IT ALSO ISN’T YET A “PARTY,” AND ACCORDING TO THE NYT ARTICLE BY JEFFREY D. SACHS, 2011, IT IS DESCRIBED AS “THE NEW PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.” WHATEVER WE CALL IT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO THIS – LOOSELY FORMED -- TOPIC TODAY. WHERE ARE WE PROGRESSIVES GOING NOW? GO TO THE LAST ARTICLE BELOW, HTTP://WWW.NYTIMES.COM/2011/11/13/OPINION/SUNDAY/THE-NEW-PROGRESSIVE-MOVEMENT.HTML


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/03/campaign-calls-bernie-sanders-lead-new-party.html
Campaign Calls on Bernie Sanders to Lead a New Party
Posted on March 12, 2017 by Yves Smith

Yves here. Even though the idea of a new political party sounds and is quixotic, the US has moved to the left when faced with significant forces outside the two-party system. One was the Progressive Party under Bob LaFollette. Another was the labor movement, particularly when in 1930s when the young CIO was both militant and effective. Unions lost when they decided to operate within the party system rather than being feral.

From the Real News Network:

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay, in Baltimore.

After the election of Donald Trump – I should say, after the nomination of Hillary Clinton and then the election of Donald Trump – a movement to elect Bernie Sanders, the people involved in that movement, had to decide what to do next: stay within the Democratic Party, or fight outside the Democratic Party.

Of course, everyone was waiting to see what Bernie Sanders would do, and he endorsed Hillary Clinton and actively campaigned for her, which was a matter of some debate amongst Sanders supporters. Now, there’s a new initiative: to create a new party and recruit Bernie Sanders to be the head of that party. Well, Bernie got asked about this on Meet the Press, and here’s his response.

CHUCK TODD: Let me ask you a question. Some of your former staffers, including Nick Brana, have a Draft Bernie for a People’s Party Movement. Essentially, they want to start a new political party. In the statement it said, “Despite Bernie Sanders’ monumental endeavor to bring people into the Democratic Party, people are leaving it by the millions. The collective efforts to reform the party cannot stem the tide of people who are going Independent, let alone expand the Democratic base.” What do you say to those efforts?

BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I say two things. Right now, we are in a pivotal moment in American history. We have a president who is delusional in many respects, a pathological liar, somebody who is trying to–

CHUCK TODD: Strong words, can you–

BERNIE SANDERS: Those are strong words.

CHUCK TODD: Can you work with a pathological liar?

BERNIE SANDERS: Well, it makes life very difficult, not just for me, and I don’t mean… you know, I know it sounds… it is very harsh. But I think that’s the truth. When somebody goes before you and the American people and says, “Three to five million people voted illegally in the last election.” Nobody believes that. There is not the scintilla of evidence. What would you call that remark? It’s a lie. It’s a delusion.

But second of all, to answer your question, I think what we need to do right now is focusing on bringing the American people together around a Progressive agenda. American people want to raise the minimum wage. They want to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. They want the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. They want the United States to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee healthcare to all people as a right.

CHUCK TODD: So if the Democratic Party isn’t that vehicle, then you would support something like that, but you still believe the Democratic Party is that vehicle?

BERNIE SANDERS: Now, right now… right now, Chuck, I am working to bring fundamental reform to the Democratic Party, to open the doors of the Democratic Party to working people, to lower income people, to young people, who have not felt welcome in the embrace of the Democratic Party.

CHUCK TODD: All right, I gotta leave it there. Senator Bernie Sanders, thanks for coming on and sharing your views, sir. Appreciate it.

PAUL JAY: So, did Bernie Sanders leave the door open, not just to the Democratic Party, but did he leave the door open to perhaps joining in a third party effort, if the Democratic Party is, as Chuck Todd said, not the vehicle to achieve the political objectives Sanders is fighting for? There’s some debate about that.

Now joining us is the author of that document – or one of the authors – is Nick Brana. Thanks for joining us.

NICK BRANA: Hey, Paul. It’s great to be here.

PAUL JAY: Nick is the founder and director of Draft Bernie for a People’s Party. He was the National Political Outreach Coordinator on Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign through the 2016 Democratic National Convention, and went on to become a founding member of Our Revolution. He left Our Revolution – that’s the organization that was initiated, or created on the initiative of Bernie Sanders. He left Our Revolution along with other former Sanders staffers around the time of its launch.

Thanks for joining us.

NICK BRANA: I’m glad to be here.

PAUL JAY: NBC interpreted Bernie’s statement as closing the door on whether he would in fact be even open to the idea of a third party run. How did you interpret what he said?

NICK BRANA: They did. But anyone who watches the field clip, as you just played it, can see that the only thing that he really said is, “Right now I’m working on the Democratic Party.” When Chuck Todd asked him again, you know, but if the Democratic Party doesn’t prove to be that vehicle, Bernie would not answer that question. He would not tell, he would not rule it out, basically, and that’s what Chuck Todd was looking for an answer for. And that’s because Bernie has kept the door open.

Because Bernie, I think, like the rest of us, understands that the Democratic Party, reforming the Democratic Party is something that is becoming increasingly bleak, changing that party – you know – the prospects of that. And I think it’s become very clear that Progressives don’t have the leverage with the party in order to be able to enact any of the things or to make them take us seriously, as well–

PAUL JAY: Now, you’re a former staffer of Sanders’.

NICK BRANA: Yeah.

PAUL JAY: Have you talked to him? What has he said? You’ve asked… you obviously must have asked him in one form or another to come head up this new initiative.

NICK BRANA: Yes. I have reached out, but those conversations are things that I can’t go into. Those kinds of… you know, discussions, unfortunately. But…

PAUL JAY: Well…

NICK BRANA: But, yes.

PAUL JAY: But he certainly seems by all his activity to be committed to what he just said, reforming the Democratic Party. One of the issues that’s been a fight both within the Democratic Party, in fact, even within Our Revolution – I think it was one of the reasons you and some of the other staffers left – is that are the Progressives, including Sanders, going to focus on this issue of primary and right wing and corporate Democrats, and really organize that fight? And/or is it just going to be about ‘defeat Trump’, which means if establishment Democrats are likely to win the seat, you’ll leave them alone despite what their politics are?

NICK BRANA: That’s definitely the direction that I think that the DNC is going. The DNC, with having elected Tom Perez,… he was specifically recruited, Tom Perez, to run in the DNC against Ellison and against other more Progressive candidates, specifically to oppose Progressive change in the party. You know, it was for that explicit purpose. And in the DNC election, the party showed that it was still… that it’s still fully in control, basically, of that vehicle. You had Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, making calls in favor of Tom Perez. And … also you had this incredible resolution where the Democratic Party, the DNC, said that it was going to continue to take corporate money to the DNC itself.

But most telling to me, Paul, is something that was never on the table in the first place. And that’s the… it’s something that we all espoused and agreed upon on Bernie’s campaign, and that’s the idea that the politicians themselves, not necessarily the DNC being hooked onto corporate money, that’s certainly true, but the politicians, Democratic politicians themselves being hooked on the corporate lobbyist and Wall Street billionaire money. And that was never even contested in the party, you know? And that to me… for it not to be even on the table, you know, tells me that the party is really not going to be the institution through which we can effect Progressive change.

PAUL JAY: But Bernie clearly is committed to this. Before the election, and Trump winning, which I don’t think many people expected – I don’t think Bernie expected it – but before the election, Bernie was talking about: everyone should run, the people should get involved, run for office; and there should be an organization, which I always thought that’s what Our Revolution’s role was always going to be, that would support what he called “candidates who support the political revolution”, and the various social and economic objectives, including single payer healthcare and such.

That meant primary and right wing Democrats were actually a high priority. Now, Trump’s been elected. Has that changed the dynamic? Has it changed it for Bernie? Has it changed it for others? Because now he shares a stage with Chuck Schumer who’s, like, the personification of the corporate Democrat.

NICK BRANA: Right. That would certainly be something that would need to happen. If he were to try to reform the Democratic Party, you have the primary, and obviously right wing Democrats. The reason that I don’t think that that would be successful is the same reason that Bernie’s campaign was so successful, kind of the same reasoning behind that. And that’s that actually reforming the Democratic Party doesn’t inspire the same level of kind of energy and enthusiasm that Bernie did on the campaign.

>People are becoming increasingly dim about that, because the party has gone… has done everything in its power to try to shut that down and to try to show that that’s really… that there is no room for Progressives. You know, they have these two sayings. They say, “This is a Big Ten [sic] Party”, you know? And they say that, “we have to unite”. Well, what they mean, those have become code for, you know, we want your votes, Progressives, we want your money, but we don’t want to actually enact any of the policies that the majority of Americans want and that Progressives want.

PAUL JAY: How does this play out? Because this is all built around right now recruiting Bernie, and at least for now you don’t have Bernie. So how do you build this, and what happens if you don’t get Bernie?

NICK BRANA: I am confident that Bernie will join us when he sees that the momentum is really on this side. And that’s what I’ve seen – the people who are joining us; there are thousands of volunteers who are signing up to volunteer, we’re starting weekly national organizing calls, getting people involved in their community, collecting petitions for him, speaking to other Progressives, getting the word out. And that I think, once Bernie sees that the momentum within the movement is on the side of starting a new party, then I think he will join us. I think he will come with us, because he knows that no matter what he’s going to in the end, he needs those Progressives, he needs that energy; and what we’ve seen in what we’re doing is really inspiring, because it’s a reawakening, actually, of that energy and enthusiasm and hope from the campaign.

People say that it feels like the early days of Bernie’s campaign. Because in the midst of this horrible kind of narrative and all the terrible things that are happening with Trump, obviously, what led to Trump in the nomination process, the Democratic Party, all of that has just been so bleak for people; and … actually drafting Bernie to start a new party is something that’s actually offering a solution to all of these things, and people are reacting very well to that.

PAUL JAY: So, what do you say to the people who were, to a large extent, making this same argument before the election, and supported the Green Party and Jill Stein? Because many of the arguments they gave were that the Democratic Party can’t be reformed, it has to be done as a third party campaign. And they’ve been doing it, they have a certain amount of national structure. Why not do it through them?

NICK BRANA: Right. That’s a great question. We get it a lot. The reason is that, what the Green Party is trying to do, what the Libertarian Party is trying to do, it’s a really admirable effort to bring a diversity of perspectives into our politics. Even if we don’t agree with them, that’s what democracy should mean: diversity of perspectives.

But, that kind of effort, to build a third party that can overtake actually a major party, has never succeeded, that route to doing it. And so by that I mean, when a party tries to build itself up from nothing, from scratch, up into a party that can challenge the major parties, successfully, we just saw that’s what has never worked successfully.

We just saw in the general election the two most despised candidates going against each other. 82% of people told the New York Times they were disgusted with the election, and with the way it had unfolded, and yet still the Green Party and the Libertarian Party couldn’t break 5%. They couldn’t get the minor party status.

And so that tells you how effective those systems are at really keeping the third parties down.

PAUL JAY: Now, wouldn’t that apply to a third party you create? Even if you have Sanders?

NICK BRANA: Yeah. That’s what I’m getting to, is that there is a successful model, though, you know, for creating a new party, and when I started looking into this I realized that it was the same way that the Democratic and the Republican Parties have been created in the past. Those began as small parties and they became major parties; especially the Republican Party example was very apt, as having overthrown the Whig Party in just four years. So essentially that model is that; rather than trying to build up from nothing, where the laws that the establishment has created to keep down third parties, they attack third parties at the takeoff stage, so it’s really difficult to take off.

But what they can’t answer is what the Republican and Democratic Parties did, which is when you bring an existing base of millions of people over to a new party. That’s the model that Lincoln followed, for example, when he built a large following – he and others in the Republican Party…

PAUL JAY: But there is an example of this happening more recently. When Wallace… when Roosevelt’s Vice President, and I guess it’s around… I think it’s in 1945, at the Democratic Party Convention, where Wallace was expected to be nominated again as the Vice President, there’s a bunch of backroom dealings going on, enormous pressure, and essentially there’s a coup takes place, and Truman is brought in as Vice President. Well, Wallace runs on a third party ticket, and there you’ve got somebody who’s got enormous support, takes a whole section of the Democratic Party base with him – and gets trounced.

And I think part of the reason for that is then – and far more even now – the media simply marginalizes the person. Because the media is so part of the State, and they only want the two parties, and it’s one of the reasons the Green Party doesn’t break through, because the media simply will not let the Green Party have a platform. They’ll never let them be in a debate, and so on.

NICK BRANA: And that’s why an established candidate, someone who has built up a following in the establishment parties and then shown the limits of that party – you know, which is exactly what Bernie has done, which is exactly what Lincoln did – they built a majority following in their party when the establishment of that party had refused to acknowledge that majority. So basically there’s a party within a party that happens to be the majority. And you could take that party and you could make it a new institution that actually reflects what people want, which is what Lincoln did successfully.

To your example with Wallace, the difference there, I would say, was that at that point the Democratic Party still represented FDR’s kind of New Deal proposals, and so it was still an institution that had the respect of working people at the time. Right now, it has moved so far away from that. I mean, we basically have a one-party state. That’s what Chomsky calls it, and Gore Vidal kind of comically says it has two right wings, a one party State with two right wings.

Because of that, when you look at party affiliation, party affiliation back then in Truman’s time was very high for the Democratic Party. But it has declined ever since then as the Democratic Party has moved further and further and further away from kind of working class representation, until now when it’s reached historic lows, really, and the number of Independents just dwarfs the number of Democrats and Republicans – it’s much higher. It’s far higher.

And so we’ve reached this point where, really, there’s an ocean of Independents out there who are just waiting for someone to unify them, and that’s why I think if Bernie left he would take – you know, talking about the party within the party – he would take the majority of the Democratic Party. Or half, you know, to be conservative.

PAUL JAY: Well, you know what the counter-argument’s going to be, is that it would lead to the re-election of a second term Trump. Because you’ll have this split in the Democratic Party. That will be the counter-argument–

NICK BRANA: I think that’s the traditional kind of reasoning. The reason I disagree with that, is that you have this incredible situation in this country where neither major party gives voice to the majority of opinions in the United States. When you look at the political spectrum by representation, by Democrats and Republicans, you see that it’s actually a tiny sliver of the actual political spectrum of what Americans believe, and it’s far off to the right wing. You know, what Democrats and Republicans debate is far off to the right wing. They just constantly agree on that, you know, especially on economic and foreign policy, and there are more substantive differences in social policy.

But because of that, there is this vast electoral real estate in actually representing people; you go issue by issue and people agree with Bernie. You know, people want tuition-free public college. People want universal healthcare. People want actually to reinvest some of the money that we’re spending on wars abroad at home. People want… Bernie’s platform is the majority platform; when you look at the United States and when you actually look at those issue poll statistics, you realize that Bernie’s the moderate; by the opinion of the American people, Bernie’s a moderate and that’s why he’s so popular.

PAUL JAY: Okay. Well, we’ll follow this along, and we’ll come back to you in a few months and see how it’s going. Your big target, I think, is the one-year anniversary, is that right?

NICK BRANA: Right.

PAUL JAY: One year anniversary of the DNC convention, you hope to have how many signatures?

NICK BRANA: That’s right. We’d like to have at least 100,000 signatures. I think that’s very doable. There are people who are joining us every day, because they say that this is something that has reawakened the inspiration that they felt on the campaign.

PAUL JAY: Okay. Well, thanks very much for joining us.

NICK BRANA: Of course.

PAUL JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.



WHERE DOES THE "REAL NEWS NETWORK" STAND POLITICALLY? CENTER TO LEFT, FACTCHECK SAYS, AND ITS’ INFORMATION IS CONSIDERED RELIABLE. AS LONG AS NOTHING TURNS ME TOTALLY OFF ABOUT REAL NEWS NETWORK I WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR ARTICLES THERE.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-news-network/
LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: The Real News (TRNN) is a nonprofit, viewer-supported daily video-news and documentary service. TRNN launched in 2007 by Paul Jay, who serves as the network’s CEO and senior editor. TRNN describes itself as a news source “focused on providing independent and uncompromising journalism.” The Real News has a moderate left wing bias that is reflected in its positions on economics. It generally gives perspective from both sides, but favors more left-wing economics through whom it interviews. (5/18/2016)

Source: http://therealnews.com/t2/


TWO OTHER IMPORTANT ARTICLES ON REAL NEWS:

Trump Stacking The National Labor Relations Board to Favor Corporations

Can the Democratic Party Represent Wall Street and Main Street? (2/3)
The politics of the possible vs a progressive vision for the future, with TRNN's Paul Jay and members of Maryland Working Families

NOTE: The first time I heard Hillary Clinton advocating “the politics of the possible,” I felt ill.


BERNIE SANDERS IS MY MAIN MAN, BUT ROBERT REICH IS ANOTHER VERY GOOD ONE.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/07/31/trumps-big-loss
Published on
Monday, July 31, 2017
by RobertReich.org
Trump’s Big Loss
by Robert Reich

Photograph -- "What’s particularly worrisome about Trump’s attack on the processes of our democracy is that the assault comes at a time when the percentage of Americans who regard the other party as a fundamental threat is growing." (Photo: Gage Skidmore / Flickr)

The demise of the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act is hardly the end of the story. Donald Trump will not let this loss stand.

Since its inception in 2010, Republicans made the Affordable Care Act into a symbol of Obama-Clinton overreach – part of a supposed plot by liberal elites to expand government, burden the white working class, and transfer benefits to poor blacks and Latinos.

Ever the political opportunist, Trump poured his own poisonous salt into this conjured-up wound. Although he never really understood the Affordable Care Act, Trump used it to prey upon resentments of class, race, ethnicity, and religiosity that propelled him into the White House.

Repealing “Obamacare” has remained one of Trump’s central rallying cries to his increasingly angry base. “The question for every senator, Democrat or Republican, is whether they will side with Obamacare’s architects, which have been so destructive to our country, or with its forgotten victims,” Trump said last Monday, adding that any senator who failed to vote against it “is telling America that you are fine with the Obamacare nightmare.”

Now, having lost that fight, Trump will try to subvert the Act by delaying funding so some insurers won’t have time to participate, not enforcing the individual mandate so funding will be inadequate, not informing those who are eligible about when to sign up and how to do so, and looking the other way when states don’t comply.

But that’s not all. Trump doesn’t want his base to perceive him as a loser.

So be prepared for scorched-earth politics from the Oval Office, including more savage verbal attacks on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, more baseless charges of voter fraud in the 2016 election, more specific threats to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, and further escalation of the culture wars.

Most Americans won’t be swayed by these pyrotechnics because they’ve become inured to our unhinged president.

But that’s not the point. The rantings are intended to shore up Trump’s “base” – the third of the country that continues to support him, who still believe they’re “victims” of Obamacare, who are willing to believe Trump himself is the victim of a liberal conspiracy to unseat him.
b>
Trump wants his base to become increasingly angry and politically mobilized so they’ll continue to exert an outsized influence on the Republican Party.

There is a deeper danger here. As Harvard political scientist Archon Fung has argued, stable democracies require that citizens be committed to the rule of law even if they fail to achieve their preferred policies.

Settling our differences through ballots and agreed-upon processes rather than through force is what separates democracy from authoritarianism.

But Donald Trump has never been committed to the rule of law. For him, it’s all about winning. If he can’t win through established democratic processes, he’ll mobilize his base to change them.

Trump is already demanding that Mitch McConnell and senate Republicans obliterate the filibuster, thereby allowing anything to be passed with a bare majority.

On Saturday he tweeted “Republican Senate must get rid of 60 vote NOW!” adding the filibuster “allows 8 Dems to control country,” and “Republicans in the Senate will NEVER win if they don’t go to a 51 vote majority NOW. They look like fools and are just wasting time.”

What’s particularly worrisome about Trump’s attack on the processes of our democracy is that the assault comes at a time when the percentage of Americans who regard the other party as a fundamental threat is growing.

In 2014 – even before Trump’s incendiary presidential campaign – 35 percent of Republicans saw the Democratic Party as a “threat to the nation’s well being” and 27 percent of Democrats regarded Republicans the same way, according to the Pew Research Center.

Those percentages are undoubtedly higher today. If Trump has his way, they’ll be higher still.

Anyone who regards the other party as a threat to the nation’s well being is less apt to accept outcomes in which the other is perceived to prevail – whether it’s a decision not to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or a special counsel’s conclusion that Trump did in fact collude with Russians, or even the outcome of the next presidential election.

As a practical matter, when large numbers of citizens aren’t willing to accept such outcomes, we’re no longer part of the same democracy.

I fear this is where Trump intends to take his followers, along with as much of the Republican Party as he can: Toward a rejection of political outcomes they regard as illegitimate and therefore a rejection of democracy as we know it.

<i>That way, Trump will always win.

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

Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future; The Work of Nations; Locked in the Cabinet; Supercapitalism; and his newest, Beyond Outrage. His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.


TODAY'S PROGRESSIVISM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/the-new-progressive-movement.html
SundayReview | OPINION
The New Progressive Movement
JEFFREY D. SACHS NOV. 12, 2011

Photograph -- Protesters severely disrupted operations at the Port of Oakland, Calif., earlier this month. Credit Kent Porter/The Press Democrat, via Associated Press

OCCUPY WALL STREET and its allied movements around the country are more than a walk in the park. They are most likely the start of a new era in America. Historians have noted that American politics moves in long swings. We are at the end of the 30-year Reagan era, a period that has culminated in soaring income for the top 1 percent and crushing unemployment or income stagnation for much of the rest. The overarching challenge of the coming years is to restore prosperity and power for the 99 percent.

Thirty years ago, a newly elected Ronald Reagan made a fateful judgment: “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” Taxes for the rich were slashed, as were outlays on public services and investments as a share of national income. Only the military and a few big transfer programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’ benefits were exempted from the squeeze.

Reagan’s was a fateful misdiagnosis. He completely overlooked the real issue — the rise of global competition in the information age — and fought a bogeyman, the government. Decades on, America pays the price of that misdiagnosis, with a nation singularly unprepared to face the global economic, energy and environmental challenges of our time.

Washington still channels Reaganomics. The federal budget for nonsecurity discretionary outlays — categories like highways and rail, education, job training, research and development, the judiciary, NASA, environmental protection, energy, the I.R.S. and more — was cut from more than 5 percent of gross domestic product at the end of the 1970s to around half of that today. With the budget caps enacted in the August agreement, domestic discretionary spending would decline to less than 2 percent of G.D.P. by the end of the decade, according to the White House. Government would die by fiscal asphyxiation.

Both parties have joined in crippling the government in response to the demands of their wealthy campaign contributors, who above all else insist on keeping low tax rates on capital gains, top incomes, estates and corporate profits. Corporate taxes as a share of national income are at the lowest levels in recent history. Rich households take home the greatest share of income since the Great Depression. Twice before in American history, powerful corporate interests dominated Washington and brought America to a state of unacceptable inequality, instability and corruption. Both times a social and political movement arose to restore democracy and shared prosperity.


The first age of inequality was the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century, an era quite like today, when both political parties served the interests of the corporate robber barons. The progressive movement arose after the financial crisis of 1893. In the following decades Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson came to power, and the movement pushed through a remarkable era of reform: trust busting, federal income taxation, fair labor standards, the direct election of senators and women’s suffrage.

The second gilded age was the Roaring Twenties. The pro-business administrations of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover once again opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess, this time culminating in the Great Depression. And once again the pendulum swung. F.D.R.’s New Deal marked the start of several decades of reduced income inequality, strong trade unions, steep top tax rates and strict financial regulation. After 1981, Reagan began to dismantle each of these core features of the New Deal.

<b>Following our recent financial calamity, a third progressive era is likely to be in the making. This one should aim for three things. The first is a revival of crucial public services, especially education, training, public investment and environmental protection. The second is the end of a climate of impunity that encouraged nearly every Wall Street firm to commit financial fraud. The third is to re-establish the supremacy of people votes over dollar votes in Washington.

None of this will be easy. Vested interests are deeply entrenched, even as Wall Street titans are jailed and their firms pay megafines for fraud. The progressive era took 20 years to correct abuses of the Gilded Age. The New Deal struggled for a decade to overcome the Great Depression, and the expansion of economic justice lasted through the 1960s. The new wave of reform is but a few months old.

The young people in Zuccotti Park and more than 1,000 cities have started America on a path to renewal. The movement, still in its first days, will have to expand in several strategic ways. Activists are needed among shareholders, consumers and students to hold corporations and politicians to account. Shareholders, for example, should pressure companies to get out of politics. Consumers should take their money and purchasing power away from companies that confuse business and political power. The whole range of other actions — shareholder and consumer activism, policy formulation, and running of candidates — will not happen in the park.

The new movement also needs to build a public policy platform. The American people have it absolutely right on the three main points of a new agenda. To put it simply: tax the rich, end the wars and restore honest and effective government for all.

Finally, the new progressive era will need a fresh and gutsy generation of candidates to seek election victories not through wealthy campaign financiers but through free social media. A new generation of politicians will prove that they can win on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and blog sites, rather than with corporate-financed TV ads. By lowering the cost of political campaigning, the free social media can liberate Washington from the current state of endemic corruption. And the candidates that turn down large campaign checks, political action committees, Super PACs and bundlers will be well positioned to call out their opponents who are on the corporate take.

Those who think that the cold weather will end the protests should think again. A new generation of leaders is just getting started. The new progressive age has begun.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the author, most recently, of “The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity.”

A version of this op-ed appears in print on November 13, 2011, on Page SR6 of the New York edition with the headline: The New Progressive Movement. Today's Paper|Subscribe

July 30, 2017


News and Views


THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT FROM WHERE I’M STANDING, THIS LOOKS LIKE A TRUE ACCIDENT, BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO CARS INVOLVED. SEVERAL CASES HAVE BEEN TERRORIST ACTION, THOUGH. I CAN REMEMBER TWO OTHERS IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO. PEOPLE SIMPLY DRIVE TOO FAST AND MISS STOP SIGNALS OR SIGNS. IF LA IS LIKE NYC AND WASHINGTON DC, DOZENS OF PEOPLE CAN BE CROSSING A STREET AT THE SAME TIME. DRIVERS LOOKING DOWN AT THEIR SMART PHONES, ETC. IS DEADLY. I DO HOPE THIS MAN (OR WOMAN) IS CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-vehicle-crashes-into-crowd-pedestrians/
CBS NEWS July 30, 2017, 8:42 PM
Multiple people injured after vehicle plows into crowd in Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES -- At least 11 people were injured when a vehicle crashed into bystanders Sunday afternoon, the Los Angeles Police Department confirmed to CBS News.

The incident took place at 3:47 p.m. on Sunday at West Pico and Redondo Boulevard when two vehicles collided and one careened into a crowd of bystanders, an LAPD spokesperson said.

Of the 11 injured, one person was listed as in severe condition.

One of the drivers was taken into custody pending an investigation, the LAPD spokesperson said.

The Los Angeles Fire Department said in a statement that eight people required emergency transport. They said an off-duty firefighter was injured at the scene but did not sustain injuries requiring transport.

This story is developing. Please check back for latest updates.


THIS VIDEO SHOWS SOME VERY WILD FIGHTING IN THE STREET THERE, LIKE OUR WATTS RIOTS IN THE 1960S.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/venezuela-democracy-vote-protests-death-toll-caracas-nicolas-maduro/
CBS/AP July 30, 2017, 6:01 PM
Death toll rises amid deadly protests over controversial vote in Venezuela

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuela's chief prosecutor's office is reporting three deaths on the day of a controversial vote for a constituent assembly that opposition leaders fear will trigger the end of democracy in Venezuela.

The office tweeted that 28-year-old Angelo Mendez and 39-year-old Eduardo Olave were killed at a protest Sunday in Merida. Thirty-year-old Ricardo Campos was killed in a separate incident in Sucre.

Few details were provided on the deaths.

White House warns of "end of democracy in Venezuela" as U.S. imposes sanctions

Leaders with the opposition Democratic Action party on Twitter identified Campos as the group's youth secretary in Sucre, a state in northern Venezuela east of the nation's capital.

The deaths bring the total to at least 122 killed in nearly four months of political upheaval.

rts19rst.jpg
Demonstrators watch a barricade burn after clashes broke out while the Constituent Assembly election is being carried out in Caracas, Venezuela, on Sun., July 30, 2017. REUTERS

Meanwhile, Venezuelans appeared to be abstaining in massive numbers on Sunday in a show of silent protest against a vote to select a constitutional assembly giving the government virtually unlimited powers.

Associated Press journalists toured more than two dozen polling places in neighborhoods across the capital, including many traditional strongholds of the ruling socialist party in southern and western Caracas. Virtually all the polling places saw hours-long lines of thousands of people in past elections over the last two decades of socialist government.

One site, a sports and cultural complex known as the Poliedro, had several thousand people waiting about two hours to vote, many having traveled from opposition-dominated neighborhoods where polling places were closed. Of the dozens of others sites seen by the AP, two in the loyalist-heavy neighborhood of El Valle had lines of approximately 200 to 400 people. All the others had at most a couple of dozen voters, and many had less than a half-dozen or were completely empty.

Opinion polls say more than 70 percent of the country is opposed to Sunday's vote.

"People aren't in agreement with this," said Daniel Ponza, a 33-year-old drywall contractor, as he watched a few dozen people outside a polling place in El Valle. "People are dying of hunger, looking for food in the trash. And I think this is just going to make things worse."

Sunday evening, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations sent a message on Twitter calling the Venezuela election a "sham" and "step toward dictatorship":

Follow
Nikki Haley ✔ @nikkihaley
Maduro’s sham election is another step toward dictatorship. We won't accept an illegit govt. The Venezuelan ppl & democracy will prevail.
5:13 PM - Jul 30, 2017
1,563 1,563 Replies 10,517 10,517 Retweets 9,676 9,676 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
In opposition-dominated eastern Caracas, riot police used tear gas to stop protesters from gathering for a march on the capital's main highway. At least three police were wounded when one of their motorcycles detonated in a powerful explosion. The cause of the explosion was not immediately clear.

After voting at dawn, President Nicolas Maduro called for international acceptance of what he called his government's fight against a violent opposition trying to sabotage his administration.

rts19rjy.jpg
Motorcycles burn after clashes broke out while the Constituent Assembly election was being carried out in Caracas, Venezuela, on Sun., July 30, 2017. REUTERS

The run-up to the vote has been marked by months of clashes between protesters and the government that have left at least 116 dead and nearly 2,000 wounded. A 61-year-old nurse was fatally shot by men accused of being pro-government paramilitaries during a protest at a church a few hundred feet from the school where Maduro voted.

"We've stoically withstood the terrorist, criminal violence," Maduro said. "Hopefully the world will respectfully extend its arms toward our country."

In an unusual moment this morning when Maduro cast his own ballot on state-controlled national television, his national ID card was to be scanned. He intended to make a statement that his vote was counted and said: "We are going to verify my national ID card so that the record shows that I came to vote and my ID card will show this for posterity, that I voted on this historic day of the constituent assembly of July 30th."

170730-reuters-maduro-02.jpg
Nicolas Maduro having his national ID card scanned. REUTERS

When the female official of the National Electoral Council (CNE) proceeds to use a smartphone to scan Maduro's card, a second camera zooms in to reveal that according to CNE's own system, that "person does not exist, or the card has been revoked."

170730-reuters-maduro-01.jpg
After scanning Maduro's national ID card, the smartphone read: "person does not exist, or the card has been revoked." REUTERS

Maduro appears livid but doesn't acknowledge the misshap, pauses for a second and then grabs his wife's ID card for scanning.

Social media was abuzz with the misshap, which fanned the flames of speculation about the place of birth of the socialist president, whose mother is rumored to be a Colombian national. Following an opposition-mandated special commission investigation into the matter, the socialist-majority Supreme Court issued a ruling last October that stated that Maduro had been born in Caracas in 1962, but did not produce a birth certificate.

Some opposition leaders continue to sustain that they have proof that Maduro was born a Colombian national, which would make him constitutionally ineligible to occupy the presidency.

Maduro's highly vocal critic and former president of Colombia ridiculed Maduro in a tweet that reads: "My fellow countryman, didn't they let you vote?"

Follow
Andrés Pastrana A ✔ @AndresPastrana_
Paisano ¿ No te dejaron votar? https://twitter.com/dianacaroruiz/status/891623165276848128 …
9:58 AM - Jul 30, 2017
926 926 Replies 18,167 18,167 Retweets 11,835 11,835 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Despite that hiccup, the opposition is boycotting Sunday's vote, contending the election has been structured to ensure Maduro's socialist party continues to dominate. So all 5,500 candidates for the 545 seats in the constituent assembly are his supporters and the vote's success is being measured by turnout.

The government is encouraging participation with tactics that include offering social benefits like subsidized food to the poor and threatening state workers' jobs if they don't vote.

"I'm here because I'm hoping for housing," said Luisa Marquez, a 46-year-old hairdresser.

Others said they were there out of conviction that the constitutional assembly would help the government fend off what they called an international capitalist conspiracy to undermine Venezuela's socialist system with the help of the domestic opposition.

"The crisis, the shortages of food and medicine, that isn't the government's fault," said Luis Osuna, a 42-year-old private bodyguard. "Those who are attacking us to kill us with hunger and blame the government are the same enemies the government's always had."

rts19rns.jpg
Women shout slogans during a protest held by Venezuelans in Spain against Venezuela's Constituent Assembly election, in Madrid, Spain, on July 30, 2017. REUTERS

Once one of Latin America's wealthiest nations, Venezuela has spiraled into a devastating crisis during Maduro's four years in power, thanks to plunging oil prices and widespread corruption and mismanagement. Inflation and homicide rates are among the world's highest and widespread shortages of food and medicine have citizens dying of preventable illnesses and rooting through trash to feed themselves.

The special assembly being selected Sunday will have powers to rewrite the country's 1999 constitution but will also have powers above and beyond other state institutions, including the opposition-controlled congress.

While opinion polls say a vast majority oppose him, Maduro made clear in a televised address Saturday evening that he intends to use the assembly to govern without limitation, describing the vote as "the election of a power that's above and beyond every other."

He said he wants the assembly to strip opposition legislators of their constitutional immunity from prosecution and indicated he eager to prosecute many more members of the opposition parties that control a handful of state governments along with the National Assembly, providing one of the few remaining checks on the power of the socialist party that has ruled this OPEC nation for nearly two decades.

"The right wing already has its prison cell waiting," the president said. "All the criminals will go to prison for the crimes they've committed."

Saying the assembly will begin to govern within a week, Maduro said its first task in rewriting the constitution will be "a total transformation" of the office of Venezuela's chief prosecutor, a former government loyalist who has become the highest-ranking official to publicly split from the president.

The Trump administration has imposed successive rounds of sanctions on high-ranking members of Maduro's administration, with the support of countries including Mexico, Colombia and Panama. Vice President Mike Pence promised on Friday that the U.S. would take "strong and swift economic actions" if the vote went ahead. He didn't say whether the U.S. would sanction Venezuelan oil imports, a measure with the potential to undermine Maduro but cause an even deeper humanitarian crisis here.

Maduro's supporters on the Supreme Court set off the protests and clashes between police and demonstrator when they tried to strip the National Assembly of its powers in April. Most of the dead have been protesters apparently shot by police and government-linked paramilitaries.

The opposition has organized a series of work stoppages as well as a July 16 protest vote that it said drew more than 7.5 million symbolic votes against the constitutional assembly.

rtx3d1w5.jpg
A demonstrator makes a fake call using a public phone at a rally during a strike called to protest against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government in Caracas, Venezuela, on Wed., July 26, 2017. On his vest reads "I want a free country". REUTERS


WAS LIFE ON EARTH ALWAYS THIS TRAUMATIC? PROBABLY SO, ESPECIALLY IF WE FIGURE IN THE SABER TOOTH CATS, CAVE BEARS, ETC. AND THERE WERE OTHER TRIBES TO WORRY ABOUT AS WELL. THEY COULDN’T ATTACK FROM 6,000 MILES AWAY, THOUGH. APPARENTLY, KIM THINKS ITS’ HIS TURN NOW.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feinstein-says-north-korea-a-clear-and-present-danger-to-the-united-states/
By EMILY TILLETT CBS NEWS July 30, 2017, 1:23 PM
Feinstein calls North Korea a "clear and present danger" to the United States

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said Sunday that North Korea poses a "clear and present danger" to the United States, in the wake of the country's second test of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Feinstein said on "Face the Nation" that after spending time on intelligence and in briefings, she's "convinced that North Korea has never moved at the speed that this leader has to develop an ICBM to put solid fuel, to have an interesting launch device, and to have a trajectory which, as of the latest analysis, would enable it to go about 6,000 miles and maybe even hit as far east as Chicago."

Transcript: Sen. Dianne Feinstein on "Face the Nation"

"We can't have that," she added. "To me, it points out the danger in isolating a country, that they go to the science and the technical know-how to show their brute force, not to handle the isolation."

feinstein.jpg
Sen. Dianne Feinstein on "Face the Nation," July 30, 2017 CBS NEWS

Feinstein's comments come after President Trump tweeted Saturday about North Korea, saying he is "disappointed" in China for not doing enough in regard to the country -- a sentiment Feinstein echoed.

"I'm very disappointed in China's response, that it has not been firmer or more helpful," she said.

China has said that it shouldn't be held responsible for solving the nuclear standoff with North Korea, and that it doesn't hold the key to resolving the issue.

The intercontinental ballistic missile North Korea tested Friday flew longer and higher than the first one the country tested, according to its wary neighbors, leading analysts to conclude that a wide swath of the U.S. including Los Angeles and Chicago is now within range of Pyongyang's weapons.

Japanese government spokesman Yoshihide Suga has said that the missile flew for about 45 minutes -- about five minutes longer than the ICBM that was test-fired on July 4.

Following the launch, the U.S. conducted a missile defense test Sunday, using a Terminal High Altitutde Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system in Alaska. The U.S. Air Force launched a medium-range ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean, and the THAAD system -- in Kodiak, Alaska -- "detected, tracked and intercepted the target," the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said in a statement Sunday.

Feinstein said "the only solution is a diplomatic one."

Feinstein added that she hopes incoming White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly will be effective in beginning some "very serious negotiation with the North and stop this program."



A FACE FROM THE PAST WHOM I HAVE MISSED A GOOD DEAL LATELY. HE’S LOOKING QUITE A BIT OLDER NOW, BUT STILL THE HUMOROUS LITTLE SMILE IS ON HIS FACE. WILL HE JOIN THE POLITICAL FRAY AGAIN, OR STAND DOWN?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/out-of-the-ashes-dick-cavett-on-rebuilding-his-historic-montauk-home/
CBS NEWS July 30, 2017, 9:37 AM
Out of the ashes: Dick Cavett on rebuilding his historic Montauk home

For years many of us were pleased to welcome talk show host Dick Cavett into our living rooms -- and now he's welcoming us into his grand summer home, along with Lee Cowan:

Amid the pounding surf, Dick Cavett pointed out nearby Cavett's Cove.

Cowan asked, "I read at some point that clothing was optional in Cavett's Cove, on the beach?"

original-tick-hall-dick-cavett.jpg
The original Tick Hall, built in 1882, was designed by Stanford White. COURTESY DICK CAVETT
"Oh, you could wear it, if you wanted to," Cavett replied.

There are lots of endearing stories like that, that happened at this endearing place: Dick Cavett's ocean-front getaway in Montauk, Long Island.

"It's just, people fall in love with it," Cavett said. "Watch, you'll ask if you can come back."

The house is historic -- it was one of seven beach cottages designed back in the 1880s by flamboyant architect Stanford White.

Cavett and his late wife, actress Carrie Nye, bought the house in 1966, just before his TV star went super-nova.

dick-cavett-with-lee-cowan-620.jpg
After a fire destroyed his 1880s Long Island seafront house, former TV talk show host Dick Cavett built an exact replica. CBS NEWS
His talk show was often the talk of TV, and many of the celebrities Cavett hosted on stage he also hosted out at that beach house, including Woody Allen, Lauren Bacall, and even playwright Tennessee Williams.

dick-cavett-house-fire.jpg
A fire destroyed the house on March 18, 1997. COURTESY DICK CAVETT
"Tennessee said, 'Dick, it's the most beautiful house I've ever seen in the North!'" Cavett laughed.

But on one tragic night in 1997, a fire destroyed it all, leaving only the brick chimney as a grim sentinel.

"You can't imagine your house being gone," Cavett said. "Every cell, I think, in your body probably, if they could be seen magnified, moves at that moment."

"Because you lost everything, right?"

"Yeah, yeah."

dick-cavett-house-interior-after-restoration-620.jpg
The interior of the house after restoration. CBS NEWS

Cavett and Nye set about to rebuild it -- but only had their memory and pictures to go by ("forensic architecture," they called it). Out of the ashes came an exact replica of Stanford White's historic home. "I think Stan would have said, 'Hey Dick, you done good!'"

He did good in his career, too. Cavett started as a comedy writer for Jack Parr, then continued for writing Johnny Carson, and did a little stand-up himself.

When he finally got his own show in 1968, he just shut up and let his guests talk -- a piece of showbiz advice he had gotten from Jack Parr.

dick-cavett-carrie-nye.jpg
An undated photo of Dick Cavett and Carrie Nye. DICK CAVVETT

"He said, 'Hey kid, when you're going to do the show, don't do interviews,'" Cavett recalled. "Make it a conversation."

It landed him guests who rarely did other shows, like Marlon Brando; John Lennon and Yoko Ono; and Groucho Marx.

The conversation didn't even have to include Cavett. He got Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier to square off, not only verbally and almost physically. "I didn't think they'd hit me, but I didn't know!" Cavett laughed.

"I have to say though, sitting across from someone who made conversation on TV the best it could be is a little intimidating, for me," Cowan said. "Because you're so good at this."

dick-cavett-house-exterior-detail-after-restoration-244.jpg
The product of "forensic architecture": The restored house. CBS NEWS
"Is that why you've stuttered and stammered the whole way through?" Cavett said.

"That's exactly why I've stud, stamm, see, I doing it now!"

"I dare them to cut this out. You are really good, really good."

"Well, coming from you that means a lot."

"I say that to everybody, of course!" Cavett added.

But perhaps his greatest back-and-forth chat was with Katharine Hepburn, who famously thought of talk shows as being mostly tactless. "She was wary, because nothing in her experience had any real connection with sitting and talking about herself," he said.

She made him move the furniture on the set, and told him his carpet was ugly, but Cavett kept her talking. "Yeah, she wouldn't shut up!" he said.

At one point, Hepburn even referenced that house of Cavett's in Montauk, which she implied held the same romance as her own beach getaway across Long Island Sound in Connecticut.

"Each one of us has a secret," Hepburn told him. "You go to Montauk and you try you rebuild your secret, and I go to the mouth of the Connecticut River and my childhood, and I try to rebuild mine."

Katharine Hepburn's Connecticut home ("Sunday Morning," 07/13/14)
But after more than 50 years, the time has come, Cavett laments, to put his seaside treasure, and the 20 acres of moorlands around it, up for sale. Asking price: $62 million and change.

Cowan asked, "So why after all these years do you want to sell this perfect place?"

"I don't want to sell it," Cavett replied. "You'd have to be a fool to want to sell it."

The home's charm never wavered, but at age 80 Cavett's enthusiasm for its upkeep did. Even fairy-tales, he reasons, have to come to an end, just like summer.

"It's just a new chapter?" Cowan asked.

"That's good, let's call it that, yeah."


See also:

A Phoenix Rises in Montauk (Architectural Digest, 01/31/01)
"From the Ashes: The Life and Times of Tick Hall" (Documentary)
dick-cavett-house-exterior-drone-after-restoration-620.jpg
The restored Tick Hall. CBS NEWS

For more info:

dickcavettshow.com
House listing on Corcoran.com



I FEEL AMBIVALENT TOWARD THIS KIND OF PROACTIVE POLICING – GOING AROUND FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE ARRESTING PEOPLE, PERHAPS CAUSING ENDANGERMENT TO FAMILY MEMBERS AND NEIGHBORS. IN HIGH THREAT SITUATIONS SUCH AS THIS ONE, OF COURSE, IMMEDIATE ACTION IS REQUIRED, AND THE TROUBLE WITH TERRORISTS IS THAT THEY GO AROUND DAILY JUST “BLENDING IN,” WHICH MEANS THEY CAN BE UNDETECTED UNTIL THEY ATTACK. TARGETING NEIGHBORHOODS CAN BE VERY REASONABLE IN THAT CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIALLY ALIENATED GROUPS DO TEND TO LIVE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER, JUST OUT OF A DESIRE FOR THE CULTURAL FAMILIARITY THAT FORMS THERE.

IF POLICE DON’T HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR SUCH RAIDS, THEY SHOULD HOLD OFF UNTIL THEY DO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE SITUATION THAN THEY SOMETIMES DO. IN ADDITION, SOMEONE SHOULD BE SUPERVISING OFFICERS, EVEN IF IT’S FROM A DISTANCE, AND A PARTNER SHOULD BE IN THE PATROL CAR WITH THEM. TWO PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO APPREHEND A SUSPECT WITHOUT KILLING HIM.

OF COURSE, AS IN THIS CASE, ANYONE WHO IS TINKERING AROUND WITH BOMB MAKING ISN’T A HOBBYIST, BUT A POTENTIAL KILLER. THEY AREN’T BUILDING MODEL AIRPLANES, AFTER ALL. AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT AUTHORITIES HAVE TO ASSUME IF THEY ARE GOING TO DO THEIR JOB EFFECTIVELY. EVEN THE ACLU PROBABLY WOULDN’T DISAGREE WITH THAT. IT’S A FINE LINE TO WALK, AND I FEEL FOR POLICE OFFICERS WHO DO HAVE TO WORK THE STREETS. A STRUGGLING SUSPECT MEANS A DANGEROUS SUSPECT. RACE SHOULD NOT BE THE REASON ACTIVE FOR SUSPICION OF GUILT, THOUGH, AND IT VERY FREQUENTLY IS. THAT IS ONE ISSUE THAT WE HAVEN’T CONQUERED.

OF COURSE, IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT POLICE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEIR CASE; AND THEY SHOULDN’T BEAT OR OTHERWISE HURT ANYONE WITHOUT A GENUINE THREAT TO THE OFFICERS OR TO BYSTANDERS. THOSE CHOKE HOLDS ARE BANNED, BUT THE OFFICERS USE THEM ANYWAY. GIVEN ALL THIS I DO UNDERSTAND WHY “RESISTING ARREST” IS A CRIME. IN ARRESTS HERE IN THE USA, THOUGH, SOMETIMES RESISTING MEANS SIMPLY A FAILURE TO IMMEDIATELY GO LIMP AND LIE STILL, OR MAKING A FAST MOVE OF ANY KIND; AND ANY “FAILURE TO OBEY A COMMAND” CAN BE ENOUGH FOR ROUGH TREATMENT OR EVEN BEING KILLED.. MENTALLY ILL AND EVEN DEAF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED FOR “FAILURE TO OBEY A COMMAND.”

NOT ALL COPS DO THAT, OF COURSE. MOST ARE GOOD AND DECENT PEOPLE, AND TEMPER THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN ACTIVE CONSCIENCE. POLICE ADMINISTRATION DOES NEED TO MANDATE A MINIMAL EFFECTIVE LEVEL OF FORCE TO ACHIEVE AN ARREST, THOUGH; AND FAILING TO DO THAT IS TOO OFTEN NOT REALLY PUNISHED BY POLICE OFFICIALS. I MAINTAIN THAT TWO WEEKS OF DESK WORK IS NOT PUNISHMENT. THAT’S WHERE THE PROBLEM WITH POLICE ACTIVITY LIES. THERE IS NO REAL PENALTY FOR MISCONDUCT. “SUPPORTING OUR POLICE OFFICERS” HAS TURNED INTO A LICENSE TO KILL.

THERE HAVE BEEN IMPROVEMENTS ON ALL OF THIS SINCE THE VIDEOS OF OFFICER MISCONDUCT HAVE COME TO LIGHT. PUTTING THESE THINGS ON PUBLIC VIEW IS A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL. A MARCH AND DEMONSTRATION BY THE HATED BLM IS ANOTHER. AS A RESULT OF SOME REAL PUSHBACK, CITY OFFICIALS ARE CHANGING THE WAY THEY HANDLE OFFICER MISCONDUCT, AND ARE TRAINING MORE THOROUGHLY TO AVOID IT. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY DON’T ALWAYS DO THAT UNLESS THERE IS A PUBLIC OUTCRY ABOUT IT. PUBLICITY OF THAT SORT IS MAKING CITIES MORE PRONE TO SUPERVISE AND PUNISH THEIR OFFICERS MORE RELIABLY TO ACHIEVE A LESSENING OF UNDUE VIOLENCE.

ALL IN ALL, I SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THESE NEWS STORIES ON THE SUBJECT; BUT IF A “ROGUE OFFICER” DOES DO HIS WORST, THE SUSPECT AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS MAY NOT APPRECIATE THE DIMINISHING NUMBER OF INCIDENTS. SIMPLE-MINDEDNESS IS A HUMAN FLAW, BUT UNTIL OFFICERS DO START RELATING TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON A PERSONAL BASIS AND BEING SENSITIVE TO THINGS LIKE MENTAL ILLNESS, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONSIDERED “THE ENEMY.” THAT’S BECAUSE POLICE ARE DANGEROUS, ALSO.

THAT “COMMUNITY POLICING” MODEL IS TAKING HOLD IN CITIES, THANK GOODNESS, AND THERE IS A DECREASE IN VIOLENCE IN RESPONSE TO IT. THE POLICE OFFICER RECENTLY WHO GOT OUT OF HIS PATROL CAR AND STARTED PLAYING BASKETBALL WITH A GROUP OF YOUNG BLACK MEN WHO WERE PROBABLY VIOLATING A RULE BY PLAYING IN THE STREET. HE COULD HAVE HARSHLY REPRIMANDED THEM AND RUN THEM OUT OF THE STREET, BUT HE DIDN’T. THAT IS COMMUNITY POLICING. POLICE OFFICERS WILL FIND THAT IF NEIGHBORHOOD MEMBERS TRUST THEM THEIR JOB WILL BE MUCH EASIER, AND MAYBE THEY WILL BE LESS PRONE TO “FEAR FOR THEIR LIFE.”

THE CASE IN ATLANTA LAST YEAR IN WHICH A GROUP OF POLICE WERE SHOT AND KILLED BY A BLACK SNIPER HAS MADE PEOPLE MORE AWARE THAT THE PEOPLE LIVING IN PRIMARILY BLACK AND HISPANIC COMMUNITIES WILL SOMETIMES BUILD UP ENOUGH RAGE TO RETALIATE. WE DON’T WANT WHAT AMOUNTS TO A WAR IN OUR CITIES, SO OFFICERS NEED TO HELP SOLVE THE INTERACTION PROBLEMS ON THEIR OWN OR, BETTER STILL, AS A GROUP. “THE BRASS” SHOULD FACILITATE THAT AND CITY NEIGHBORHOODS COULD ALSO INITIATE IT. DISCUSSION GROUPS COULD BE FORMED IN CHURCHES AND COMMUNITY CENTERS, FOR INSTANCE, BETWEEN POLICE AND CITIZENS ON THE ISSUES OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND A CARING STYLE OF POLICING, JUST AS A HUMANE LEVEL OF CARING AND EMPATHY SHOULD GO OUT FROM THE COMMUNITY TO THE POLICE. WHERE THERE IS GENUINE RESPECT AND FRIENDLINESS, THERE WON’T BE A WAR IN THE CITY STREETS.

WHEN I WAS YOUNG, AND IN A SMALL CITY RATHER THAN THE CRIME RIDDEN METROPOLIS ENVIRONMENTS, POLICE WERE COMMUNITY MEMBERS (IN THE WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS) AND WENT TO THE SAME CHURCHES, CONVERSED WITH PEOPLE IN A CIVIL WAY, AND WERE RESPECTED AND LIKED. THAT’S HARD IN BIG CITIES BECAUSE SO FEW PEOPLE EVEN KNOW EACH OTHER, BUT THAT’S WHAT WE NEED TO MOVE TOWARD ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IT IS POSSIBLE. IT JUST WON’T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arrests-disrupted-plan-to-bring-down-planes-australian-pm-says/
AP July 29, 2017, 10:32 PM
Police disrupted plot to "bring down an airplane," Australian PM says

Photograph -- A policeman stands on a street that has been blocked to the public after Australian counter-terrorism police arrested four people in raids late on Saturday across several Sydney suburbs in Australia, July 29, 2017. REUTERS / DAVID GRAY

CANBERRA, Australia -- Australian police disrupted a plot to bring down an airplane and arrested four men in raids on homes in several Sydney suburbs, the prime minister said Sunday.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that security has been increased at Sydney Airport since Thursday because of the plot. The increased security measures also were extended to all major international and domestic terminals around Australia overnight.

"I can report last night that there has been a major joint counterterrorism operation to disrupt a terrorist plot to bring down an airplane," Turnbull told reporters. "The operation is continuing."

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin said details were scant on the specifics of the attack, the location and timing.

2017-07-29t235608z-1392997468-rc1f169e8e00-rtrmadp-3-australia-security-raids.jpg
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull speaks as Australia's Minister for Justice Michael Keenan listens on during a media conference in Sydney, Australia, July 30, 2017. AAP/SAM MOOY/VIA REUTERS

"In recent days, law enforcement has been become aware of information that suggested some people in Sydney were planning to commit a terrorist attack using an improvised devise," Colvin said. "We are investigating information indicating the aviation industry was potentially a target of that attack."

Australia's terrorist threat level remained unchanged at "probable," Turnbull said. He advised travelers in Australia to arrive at airports earlier than usual - two hours before departure - to allow for extra security screening and to minimize baggage.

There was no evidence that airport security had been compromised, Colvin said.

"We believe it's Islamic-inspired terrorism," Colvin said when asked if the Islamic State group was behind the plot.

Seven Network television reported that 40 riot squad officers wearing gas masks stormed an inner-Sydney house before an explosives team found a suspicious device. Colvin declined to say whether a fully equipped improvised explosive device had been found at that address.

A woman led from a raid by police with her head covered told Nine Network Television: "I love Australia."

2017-07-30t021525z-950168549-rc1b6b5cfda0-rtrmadp-3-australia-security-raids.jpg
A police officer wearing protective gear talks to fellow officers as he stands in the doorway of a home after Australian counter-terrorism police arrested four people in raids late on Saturday across several Sydney suburbs in Australia, July 30, 2017. REUTERS / DAVID GRAY

None of the four suspects arrested in five raids had been charged, Colvin said. He would not discuss what charges they might face. None of the arrested men worked in the airport industry, Colvin said.

The plot was the 13th significant threat disrupted by police since Australia's terrorist threat level was elevated in 2014, Justice Minister Michael Keenan said. Five plots have been executed.

"The primary threat to Australia still remains lone actors, but the events overnight remind us that there is still the ability for people to have sophisticated plots and sophisticated attacks still remain a real threat," Keenan said." In light of this information, it's very important that everyone in Australia remains vigilant."

New South Wales Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said police agreed they had to act on Saturday night because the threat was imminent.

"The reality with terrorism ... (is) you can't wait until you put the whole puzzle together," Fuller said. "If you get it wrong, the consequences are severe."

Since Australia's terrorist threat level was raised in 2014, 70 suspects have been charged in 31 counter-terrorism police operations, Keenan said.



LOOK AT THIS PHOTO OF VLADIMIR PUTIN WITH THE ARTICLE. HE LOOKS GENUINELY UNHAPPY, BUT NOT ANGRY. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A BETTER RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA, BUT WITH PUTIN’S VERY HIGHHANDED BEHAVIOR, STARTING WITH TAKING OVER A CHUNK OF UKRAINE AND THEN MANIPULATING THE ELECTION OF 2016 HERE, I DON’T HAVE MUCH GOOD WILL TOWARD HIM ANY MORE. I DID REALLY LIKE KHRUSHCHEV AND GORBACHEV. BOTH WERE ACTUALLY FRIENDLY TOWARD THE US, AND MORE OPEN IN THEIR PERSONALITIES THAN PUTIN.

PUTIN IS A VERY BRIGHT MAN, BUT NOT GENTLE NOR TRUSTWORTHY IN MY HUMBLE VIEW. FROM WHAT A NEWS COMMENTATOR SAID RECENTLY, HE IS HIGHLY MANIPULATIVE; AND THAT HE WAS SEEMING TO BEFRIEND TRUMP, WITH THE LIKELY GOAL OF ESTABLISHING SOME CONTROL OVER HIM. I HOPE TRUMP IS BRIGHT ENOUGH TO SEE THAT.

I READ AN INTERESTING NEWS ARTICLE DESCRIBING A SERIES OF OPEN AIR INTERVIEWS WITH VARIOUS RUSSIANS WHO HAPPENED TO BE WALKING DOWN THE STREET. ONE WAS A SCHOOL TEACHER WHO HAD SOME UNHAPPY WORDS ABOUT PUTIN; AND HIS REPUTATION INCLUDES HIGHLY UNETHICAL ACTIONS, SUCH AS ASSASSINATING POLITICAL RIVALS. THE FACT THAT OUR PRESIDENT SEEMS TO BE SO DRAWN TO HIM – AND IN AN INTERVIEW NOT LONG AGO ACTUALLY EXCUSED THOSE MURDERS -- MAKES ME FEEL THAT HE MAY APPROVE OF SUCH ACTIONS BECAUSE THEY SEEM “STRONG.” TO ME, VILLAINY IS NOT STRONG.

KHRUSHCHEV APPEALED TO ME BECAUSE HE WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT HE DIDN’T GET TO GO TO DISNEYLAND, AND WAS FASCINATED WITH OUR LARGE MIDWESTERN FARMS. HE ALSO BEAT ON A TABLE IN A UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY MEETING WITH HIS SHOE. THERE WAS A NEWS SHOT OF IT, AND HE WAS GRINNING AS HE DID IT. HE HAD SOME FUN IN HIS PERSONALITY, WHICH IS A VERY IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC TO ME. BILL CLINTON AND HE GOT ALONG VERY WELL TOGETHER. THERE’S A PHOTO OF THEM SHARING A “BELLY LAUGH.”

I LIKED GORBACHEV BECAUSE HE WAS A CULTIVATED AND HANDSOME MAN, AND PUT THROUGH MUCH NEEDED CHANGE TO RUSSIA AND HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD. THERE WAS A RUMOR HERE IN THE US, UNDOUBTEDLY STARTED BY SOME RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN GROUP HERE, THAT HE WAS “THE ANTI-CHRIST” BECAUSE OF THE LARGE RED BIRTHMARK ON HIS FOREHEAD. THOSE WHO LOVE TO READ THE BOOK OF REVELATION INTERPRETED THAT AS “THE MARK OF THE BEAST.” OH, DEAR! RELIGION IS A GOOD THING UNLESS IT IS DANGEROUS – THE BURNING OF WITCHES AND THE CRUSADES, FOR INSTANCE.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/755-us-diplomats-must-leave-russia-putin-181315699.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=69f70237-124f-3ea9-acd0-fc922af945e2&.tsrc=notification-brknews
AFP July 30, 2017

Photograph -- "More than a thousand people were working and are still working" at the US embassy and consulates, Putin said in an interview with Rossia-24 television (AFP Photo/Martti Kainulainen)

Moscow (AFP) - President Vladimir Putin said 755 US diplomats must leave Russia and warned ties with Washington could be gridlocked for a long time, in a move Sunday that followed tough new American sanctions.

The Russian foreign ministry had earlier demanded Washington cut its diplomatic presence in Russia by September to 455 -- the same number Moscow has in the US.

"More than a thousand people were working and are still working" at the US embassy and consulates, Putin said in an interview with Rossia-24 television.

"755 people must stop their activities in Russia."

Putin added that an upturn in Russia's relations with Washington could not be expected "any time soon".

"We have waited long enough, hoping that the situation would perhaps change for the better," he said.

"But it seems that even if the situation is changing, it's not for any time soon."

On Thursday, the US Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill to toughen sanctions on Russia for allegedly meddling in the 2016 US presidential election and for its annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Iran and North Korea are also targeted in the sanctions bill.

The law now goes to President Donald Trump who had made an improvement in ties with Russia a plank of his election campaign.

Moscow on Friday ordered the US to slash its number of diplomats in Russia to 455 and froze two embassy compounds -- a Moscow summer house and a storage facility in the city -- from August 1.

In December, the then US president Barack Obama ordered out 35 Russian diplomats and closed down two embassy summer houses that Washington said were being used by Moscow for espionage.



WELL, THIS POLL DOESN’T SURPRISE ME. TRUMP DOES THINGS EVERY NOW AND THEN THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING, WHICH CONTRASTS WITH THOSE EVENTS THAT SHOW HIM TO BE MERELY CLUELESS AND INEPT, WITH A LEANING TOWARD THE DESPOTIC. THE TERMS “FRIGHTENING, UNNECESSARY DRAMA AND CHAOS, ARE GREAT DESCRIPTIONS ABOUT THE WAY I REACT TO TRUMP. SOMETIMES I SEE IT AS MAINLY INEPTITUDE, BUT LATELY I HAVE BEGUN TO VIEW IT AS BEING SOMETHING WORSE – A CLEVER IF DESPICABLE PLAN ON HIS PART (AND PERHAPS PUTIN’S PART) TO DESTABILIZE THIS NATION TO THE DEGREE THAT OUR ABILITY TO GOVERN COULD ACTUALLY BE AT STAKE. I WILL CITE THE INCREASING UPRISING OF MULTIPLE FAR RIGHT GROUPS WHOSE GOAL IS TO “TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT” FROM THE “COASTAL LIBERAL ELITES.”

THE ONLY THING GOOD I CAN SAY ABOUT HIM IS THAT HE DOES LOVE HIS CHILDREN – MELANIA, MAYBE NOT. I CAN FORGIVE THOSE INEPTITUDES, THOUGH WE DON’T NEED THEM IN OUR NATION’S LEADER AND REPRESENTATIVE FIGUREHEAD, BUT I DON’T FORGIVE DEEP, GREEDY DISHONESTY (LIKE THE TRUMP UNIVERSITY SCAM), AND CRUELTY AS WHEN HE WENT INTO A GROTESQUE IMITATION OF A REPORTER WHO HAD A NEUROLOGICAL DISABILITY SOMETHING LIKE CEREBRAL PALSY.

WHEN I SEE THINGS LIKE THAT, IT SOLIDIFIES MY BELIEF THAT WEALTH, PER SE, DOES NOT IMPROVE THE CHARACTER. PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE LOOKING AT TRUMP AND WHAT THEY SEE IS NOT GOOD. I HAVE A SIMILAR REACTION ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL TO “LITTLE KIM” OF NORTH KOREA. THEY JUST AREN’T READY TO HEAD A NATION, AND THEY ARE DANGEROUS AS PERSONALITIES. KIM HAS KILLED SEVERAL PEOPLE, INCLUDING AT LEAST ONE FAMILY MEMBER IN ORDER TO ADVANCE HIS POWER.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-say-trump-creating-conflict/
By ANTHONY SALVANTO, KABIR KHANNA, JENNIFER PINTO, FRED BACKUS CBS NEWS July 30, 2017, 10:30 AM
Nation Tracker poll: Most say Trump creating “conflict and drama” and “chaos” as core backers applaud the fight

Six months in, President Donald Trump's strongest backers like seeing him fight his chosen opponents: they want the president to call out those he believes disloyal, do even more to make Democrats mad, fight with the mainstream media, and feel he's taking on "people who deserve it."

CBS News 2017 Nation Tracker Tabs
sample-nt-01-six-months-in.jpg
CBS NEWS POLL

But the combativeness they applaud seems precisely what most others dislike. And that – along with declining personal evaluations - is costing the president potential support, even as many give him credit for an improving economy, according to a new Nation Tracker poll released Sunday.

The president's overall ratings on the metrics of being "presidential" and "effective" remain down, and today many of his softer and would-be supporters feel he creates unnecessary "conflict and drama," and most of his detractors – and most Americans overall - describe what they see from the White House as "chaos."

sample-nt-02-describe-admin-1.jpg
CBS NEWS POLL

The nationwide trend in support, comparing today to the initial Nation Tracker study at the beginning of the president's term, is a slow drift in the direction of opposition. Resister ranks have increased over time (six points from the start of the administration) and the strongest supporter ranks have thinned slightly (down four points from the start.)

The big gaps between the groups are defined by very different personal ratings of the president and how he's handling himself in office. And things could become even more intractable: those on the furthest ends – the strongest backers and strongest opponents – are more likely to strongly believe their way of life is at stake.

Trump says Congress should have approved health care repeal

Believers

President Trump's most ardent backers – who call themselves supporters, period, and whom we've labeled Believers since the start of this ongoing panel study – remain connected and loyal to the president by what seems a deep cultural and personal link, feeling he "fights for people" like them and speaks in a way they can relate to.

They're the only group, among the segments in this study, where a majority wants the president to do more tweeting. A majority of these Americans describe what they're seeing from the White House as "great" and overwhelmingly feel the country, and their culture, are safer now.

sample-nt-10-more-important-1.jpg
CBS NEWS POLL

Their loyalty – which they say the president deserves – is to Donald Trump over other political parties and labels like conservative or Republican.

But this core base has shrunk a bit as it intensifies – down now to 18 percent from the 22 percent where it started in February. They like him both personally and politically, but softer supporters do not.

In a signal of how much culture and national issues may matter to the Believers even over their own finances, they are more likely to say the nation is safer and the borders are more secure than to say their own economic situation has improved under this president. Demographically, they are also much older than other support groups.

Conditionals

Conditional supporters – who back him but say he must deliver what they want - are still with the president, but increasingly call him distracted, and much less likely to call him effective than they were this spring, and less likely than believers to think he's gotten things done so far, though most do.

sample-nt-03-trump-is-1.jpg
CBS NEWS POLL

They're more apt than believers to say Mr. Trump is starting unnecessary conflict and drama. They want to see less fighting and "taking on" other groups, and more of Mr. Trump working across the aisle; more focus on policy items like infrastructure.

Most of them do not think the "swamp" is being drained.

What keeps them attached? They're attached to his policies – which they like – more so than to the president, personally.

But despite the critiques they also say they remain patient – in fact, patience is one thing that distinguishes "conditionals" from other people who don't want the fighting but who've now become curious opponents. And most are rooting for him to succeed.

They give the president credit for the economy. The question for them, it seems, is whether they'll ultimately get all they want. The people who started in February as supporters, but have drifted away to become curious opponents today, say things have gone worse than expected so far.

John Dickerson on the most recent White House shake-up
Play VIDEO
John Dickerson on the most recent White House shake-up
The Curious

Opponents who are potential supporters – we've labeled them curious because they say they still might consider the president, but are not with him now – say they are neither rooting for nor against him at this point. They disapprove of him personally, because they feel he isn't making their own prospects any better. They're more likely to describe themselves as growing impatient than being out of patience yet. Personal views of the president take a big downward turn as people go from Conditional supports to curious opponents.

sample-nt-11-new-1.jpg
CBS NEWS POLL

The curious cite Mr. Trump's own personal behavior and comments as the main reason they are against him, far ahead of not keeping his promises. For them his rating on being "presidential" has declined five points from May.

Most don't think he's gotten any meaningful policy things done, and this dovetails with their description of him as distracted.

Like both supporters and opponents of the president, they want to see him negotiate with Democrats more. The curious are more likely to call themselves independent than to align with either of the two major parties. Importantly, most also did not vote in the 2016 presidential election.

As the ranks of the curious have declined during the course of the administration (one might now even label them skeptical) those who have left have become resisters, not supporters.

Those who moved into the resister ranks since February describe what they see as "frightening" and "chaos." Back in February, they said they would decide whether or not to support the president in part by how he handled himself in office. Today, they voice a strong dislike of President Trump personally.

Health care may have had some impact on all this. Those who disapproved of the president's handling of health care overwhelmingly felt he was not fighting for their economic interests, more generally.

The Resisters

Finally, the ranks of his staunchest opponents – who we call resisters in this study - have grown, due in part to former supporters who describe themselves as out of patience, and those in this group overwhelmingly (three in four) call what they're seeing "frightening" -- a sentiment that may, in turn, be exactly what the core supporters want them to feel.

Most resisters – eight in ten - at least somewhat believe the fundamental matter of how the country's democracy works is at stake today, the highest of any group.

They are also distinguished from curious [the] by their desire for what will happen. Believing so much is at stake, nine in 10 resisters are hoping President Trump does not succeed, because they think the country will be better off if he didn't accomplish what he wants to.

The main reason resisters say they are against Mr. Trump is that they feel he's harming the country and its democracy – more than two-thirds do - which is different from the curious, who point to Trump's personal behavior as the reason they oppose him.

sample-nt-05-describe-trump-1.jpg
CBS NEWS POLL

They don't see much outreach from the president. Nearly all of the resisters don't think the president speaks for them. And they don't see him as fighting for people like them. Two-thirds of them say the first six months of the Trump presidency is worse than they expected – far higher than the less than half of the curious who say that. They see Mr. Trump as temperamental and even dangerous.

The CBS News 2017 Nation Tracker is conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 2,334 U.S. adults from July 26-28, 2017. The margin of error is ±2.5.

FOR DETAIL ON THE POLL, SEE BELOW.

Poll questions and polling methods –
SEE https://www.scribd.com/document/355077014/Nationtracker-Tabs-July-30-Cbs-20170730


http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/enduring-hundreds-of-insect-stings-for-science/
SEE ALSO THE VIDEO AD ON GREAT BARRIER REEF STATUS – EXCELLENT LIVE IMAGES OF HOW REEFS AND LIVING POLYPS LOOK AND GROW.

July 29, 2017


News and Views


THIS ARTICLE AGAIN CONTAINS A PHRASE WHICH THROWS ME, SINCE IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL AND TOTALLY NEW TO ME. THAT IS “A 4G THREAT.” IT HAS A SCIENTIFIC USAGE INVOLVING COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.

I COULDN’T BELIEVE THAT 4G MEANING “GLOBAL, GRAVE, GIVEN AND GROWING,” WOULD BE AN OFFICIAL TERM FOR ANYTHING, AND I’M STILL NOT CONVINCED THAT IT IS. THE ONLY 4G THREAT THAT I FOUND PERTAINS TO COMMUNICATIONS. 4G MEANS 4TH GENERATION OF SPEED, ONE LEVEL UP FROM 3RD GENERATION. SEE: IEEEXPLORE.IEEE.ORG BELOW.

PERHAPS THAT WORDING IS PART OF DIPLOMATIC TERMINOLOGY, OR PERHAPS THE AMBASSADOR WAS GIVING IN TO AN INFORMAL WAY OF SPEAKING. IT WAS SAID BY A FRENCH DIPLOMAT. ODDLY, THOUGH, I COULD FIND NO DEFINITION EVEN VAGUELY REFERRING TO DIPLOMACY EXCEPT THIS ONE ARTICLE WHICH WAS REPEATED NUMEROUS TIMES UNDER THOSE SEARCH WORDS, ALL OF WHICH CREDIT THE SAME SOURCE. STRANGE.... ANYWAY, IT IS A GRAVE SITUATION, FOR SURE, AND WORTHY OF A SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING. I HOPE PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN’T TWEET OUT HIS COMMENT ABOUT IT BELOW.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-calls-for-emergency-security-council-meeting-over-north-korean-icbm-test/
By PAMELA FALK CBS NEWS July 29, 2017, 12:05 PM
U.S. calls for emergency Security Council meeting over second North Korean ICBM test

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.S. mission to the U.N. has requested an emergency meeting of the Security Council on Monday in response to North Korea's latest test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a Security Council diplomat tells CBS News.

The U.S. is asking the Security Council to meet and discuss the international community's response to the North Korean test, its second ICBM launch in a month. The missile launched on Friday traveled 1,000 km before landing in the Sea of Japan. Analysts said the missile puts cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and New York within range of a North Korean strike.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson denounced the missile launch, saying in a statement Friday that North Korea was "in blatant violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions that reflect the will of the international community."

Tillerson also called Russia and China "the principal economic enablers of North Korea's nuclear weapon and ballistic missile development program."

North Korea test-fires second ICBM
Play VIDEO
North Korea test-fires second ICBM

North Korea conducted its first successful launch of an ICBM on July 4, firing a missile that analysts said was capable of reaching Alaska. Following that test, the Security Council was unable to agree on a statement condemning Pyongyang after Russia objected to language referencing an ICBM.

The U.S. and China have since been negotiating over the terms of a new resolution against North Korea.

After the July 4 launch, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley called for existing sanctions on the North Korean regime to be tightened. She also pushed the Security Council to levy new sanctions to cut off currency that the North uses to finance its nuclear program.

The new sanctions proposed by the U.S. include restricting oil imports, increasing air and maritime restrictions and naming additional officials to sanctions freezing assets and banning travel.

Two diplomats familiar with the negotiations told CBS News that the U.S. wants to add Kim Jong Un's name to the list of officials subject to the assets and travel ban. China, North Korea's closest ally, is unlikely to allow such a move against Kim.

China's Ambassador to the U.N. Liu Jieyi confirmed to CBS News that the U.S. and China are working on a new resolution.

"The context of a new resolution is that we both agree on the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," Liu said. "But we have to try to get back to talks and de-escalate tension."

Western allies of the U.S. on the Security Council support additional sanctions against the regime.

"[North Korea] is a 4G threat: global, grave, given and growing," French Ambassador to the U.N. Francois Delattre said. "That's why we call for a firm and quick reaction including the adoption of strong additional sanctions by the Security Council."

Pamela Falk
Pamela Falk is CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst and an international lawyer, based at the United Nations.


http://www.wwltv.com/news/nation-world/japan-nkorea-fires-possible-missile-could-land-off-japan/460200157

“...The French Foreign Ministry condemned the launch and called for "strong and additional sanctions" by the United Nations and European Union. "Only maximal diplomatic pressure might bring North Korea to the negotiating table," the ministry said in a statement.

"This is a 4G threat: global, grave, given and growing," France's U.N. Ambassador Francois Delattre told The Associated Press. That's why we call for a firm and quick reaction including the adoption of strong additional sanctions by the Security Council." ....”


THIS IS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT THE 4G THAT THE ARTICLE REFERS TO, BUT IT IS INTERESTING NONETHELESS.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4437813/
A Survey of Security Threats on 4G Networks

Abstract:
Many communication societies such as ITU and IEEE are working on 4th generation (4G) communication. This paper provides an overview of standardization activities focusing on the network security architectures and a survey of security threats on 4G networks. Our survey shows that a number of new security threats to cause unexpected service interruption and disclosure of information will be possible in 4G due mainly to the fact that 4G is an IP-based, heterogeneous network. We also found there still remain several open issues although many are working on fixing and/or designing new security architectures for 4G.
Published in: Globecom Workshops, 2007 IEEE
Date of Conference: 26-30 Nov. 2007
Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 22 January 2008



THIS REALLY IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR NOT ONLY THE PRESIDENT BUT SO MANY OF HIS STAFF TO HAVE MAJOR PROBLEMS, AND THE GENERAL ATMOSPHERE OF CONFUSION IS UNNERVING. CAN WE HANDLE AN EMERGENCY IF WE SHOULD HAVE ONE? I DON’T KNOW WHERE WE’RE GOING, AND I DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES EITHER. I HOPE THIS TERMINATES SOON WITH THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. WE NEED SOME HONEST, DECENT, COMPETENT PEOPLE TO STEER THIS SHIP. I’M NOT IMPLYING THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT, OF COURSE. ON THE OTHER HAND, I DIDN’T RUN FOR IT, EITHER. I HOPE AND PRAY THAT SOMETHING GOOD HAPPENS SOON.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bob-schieffer-anthony-scaramucci-interview-embarrassing/
CBS NEWS July 28, 2017, 10:47 AM
Bob Schieffer calls Scaramucci interview "embarrassing"

Incoming White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci took aim at Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and others Thursday in an expletive-filled interview.

He threatened to "fire everyone" to get to the bottom of White House leaks and called Priebus a "paranoid schizophrenic."

During a conversation on "CBS This Morning" on Friday, CBS News contributor Bob Schieffer described the interview as "embarrassing."

"It is just embarrassing for the nation," Schieffer said. "And the idea that someone who represents the president of the United States…"

Scaramucci, apparently believing that Priebus had leaked information about a dinner President Trump had Wednesday night with Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Fox executive Bill Shine, first threatened to fire the entire communications staff if reporter Ryan Lizza did not divulge the source of the leaks.

Schieffer said that he believes this week might be "some kind of a turning point" in the presidency, citing the turmoil surrounding Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Mr. Trump has publicly slammed Sessions for recusing himself from the Justice Department investigation into whether the president's campaign had anything to do with Russian interference in the election last fall.

"I tell you, the way that Jeff Sessions has been treated, it did not go over well with the Republicans in the United States Senate," Schieffer said. "They don't like it. He gave up a Senate seat to go serve the president. That's an honorable thing to do. To hang him out to dry like they've done, I think that made more of an impression on the senators than any other has done and that does not help him."

"I think, if the president does not get his business in order here, I think it's going nowhere," Schieffer added. "I think his agenda is going to go right out the window. He's got to get together with people in Washington and find some way to work together."


RACHEL MADDOW AND OTHER VIDEOS

Rachel Maddow is at the top of her game in this recent monologue: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/gop-deploys-counter-narrative-amid-continued-trump-disgrace-1011790915788?cid=eml_mra_20170728
Go to her site and watch it.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/russian-kaspersky-labs-faces-new-scrutiny-suspicion-1012640835507
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/28/17
Russian Kaspersky Lab faces new scrutiny, suspicion
Richard Engel talks with Eugene Kaspersky, whose Kaspersky Lab anti-virus software is widely used around the world, including the United States, and who has come under increasing scrutiny and suspicion for his ties to Russian intelligence. Duration: 17:47


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/latest-russia-intrigue-follows-long-history-of-espionage-1012662339921
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/28/17
Latest Russia intrigue follows long history of espionage
Richard Engel reports on the long history of espionage and agent recruitment between the United States and Russia. Duration: 6:34


THIS TIM WEINER INTERVIEW IS SOOTHING TO MY NERVES. HE SEEMS GENUINELY SURE THAT A DONALD TRUMP CAN'T FIRE MUELLER, OR BEAT HIM, EITHER. THAT'S GOOD NEWS.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/expert-nothing-can-stop-bobby-mueller-1011853379801
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/27/17
Expert: 'Nothing can stop Bobby Mueller' despite Trump's efforts
Tim Weiner, historian of the FBI and CIA, talks with Rachel Maddow about the Republican effort to discredit the FBI and the Trump Russia investigation, and what Donald Trump doesn't understand about the FBI. Duration: 7:50


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-employs-christie-style-bully-politics-in-health-bill-push-1011868739903
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/27/17
Trump employs Christie-style bully politics in health bill push
Rachel Maddow points out the parallels between the bully tactics at the root of the Bridgegate scandal and the pressure Donald Trump is trying to put on Senator Lisa Murkowski by threatening Alaska, noting also that Chris Christie's former campaign manager now works as Trump's political director. Duration: 4:48



AULD ACQUAINTANCE REMEMBERED 2017

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/notable-deaths-in-2017/
Notable deaths in 2017
Photographs 90 with short bios