JANUARY 8 AND 9, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

THERE REALLY ARE NO CLEVER WORDS TO PUT WITH THIS ARTICLE. JUST READ IT FOR THE INFORMATION; THIS IS SO MUCH IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF HIS BEHAVIOR THAT I AM NOT EVEN SURPRISED.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46818218
Trump walks out of shutdown talks with a 'bye-bye'
JANUARY 9, 2019 4 hours ago

VIDEO -- Shutdown struggles: How these three workers are coping

President Donald Trump has walked out of a meeting with Democratic leaders as negotiations broke down on the 19th day of a US government shutdown.

The Republican president ended talks after Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer stuck by their refusal to fund his planned US-Mexico border wall.

Mr Trump called his meeting with the pair "a total waste of time".

Some 800,000 federal workers will go without pay this week for the first time since the shutdown began.

The president tweeted afterwards that he had said "bye-bye" to the top Democrats.

Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump@REALDONALDTRUMP
Report

Outside the White House the blame game was in full flow from both sides after Wednesday's meeting in the Situation Room, a conference centre in the West Wing basement.

Mrs Pelosi, who is speaker of the House of Representatives, said the legion of unpaid federal employees were "collateral damage" to Mr Trump.

"The president seems to be insensitive to that," she said. "He thinks maybe they could just ask their father for more money. But they can't."

Mr Schumer told reporters the president had abruptly left when Mrs Pelosi said she would not approve any wall funding.

The Senate Democratic leader said: "He [Mr Trump] asked Speaker Pelosi, 'Will you agree to my wall?' She said no.

"And he just got up and said, 'Then we have nothing to discuss,' and he just walked out.

"Again, we saw a temper tantrum because he couldn't get his way."

Media captionFive questions about Trump's border wall
The New York senator also said Mr Trump had "slammed the table", but senior Republican congressman Steve Scalise denied this.

Vice-President Mike Pence told reporters he was "disappointed" that Democrats were "unwilling to engage in good faith negotiations".

Kevin McCarthy, Republican leader in the House of Representatives, said he found the Democrats' behaviour "embarrassing".

Though Republican leaders and Mr Trump insist the party is "totally unified" behind him, several moderate senators are wavering.

Image Copyright @lisamurkowski@LISAMURKOWSKI
Report
Mr Trump has demanded $5.7bn (£4.5bn) to build a steel barrier, which would deliver on a key campaign pledge.

But Democrats - who this month took over the House of Representatives - have refused.

Wednesday's heated dispute came a day after Mr Trump's first televised Oval Office address to the nation, where he described the border as a humanitarian and security crisis.

Mrs Pelosi and Mr Schumer aired a rebuttal calling the president's claims a fake threat.

Mr Trump has threatened to declare a national emergency over the border "crisis", in a bid to bypass congressional approval and build the wall.

Can Trump use emergency powers to build wall?
Nine federal agencies are closed due to a lack of funding since 22 December in a shutdown that is poised this weekend to become the longest in US history.

A new opinion poll suggests just over half of Americans (51%) blame President Trump for the shutdown, but that 77% of Republican voters back his demand for wall funding.

On social media, federal workers have been sharing stories of hardships and frustrations. Some are now considering finding new jobs to make ends meet.

GETTY IMAGES
Image caption -- Honduran migrants walk toward the U.S.-Mexico border fence to cross over in Tijuana, Mexico


THIS IS ONE OF THE REALLY UGLY WORDS FOR BLACK PEOPLE. LAST TIME I HEARD IT WAS IN 1963, THOMASVILLE, NC. EVIL MUST BE LIKE BACTERIA. YOU CAN KILL IT TEMPORARILY, BUT ITS’ SPORES WILL COME TO LIFE AGAIN AS SOON AS THE PUBLIC ATMOSPHERE BECOMES WELCOMING. A SIGN OF THE TIMES. THIS MAN EXPRESSES “DISAPPOINTMENT” THAT HIS STATION DIDN’T “SUPPORT HIM.” I APPLAUD THEM FOR STANDING UP TO GOOD JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS. I FEEL SORRY FOR HIS WIFE. LOOK AT HER FACE DURING THIS VIDEO INTERVIEW.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/us/new-york-meteorologist-racial-slur/index.html
New York meteorologist fired after using racial slur on air
Amir Vera byline
By Amir Vera, CNN
Updated 9:05 PM ET, Tue January 8, 2019

NEWS VIDEO -- New York meteorologist fired after using racial slur on air

This article contains offensive language.

(CNN)A television station in Rochester, New York, fired a meteorologist Sunday after he used a racial slur on air.

During WHEC-TV's Friday evening broadcast, Jeremy Kappell said "Martin Luther Coon Park," when referring to a downtown Rochester park named after slain civil rights movement leader Martin Luther King Jr.

In a video viewed by CNN, Kappell says "King" immediately after using the slur and continues with the broadcast.

Kappell said his use of the slur was a mistake caused by speaking too quickly.
"What happened on Friday, to me, it's a simple misunderstanding. If you watch me regularly you know that I tend to contain a lot of information in my weather cast, which forces me to speak fast and unfortunately I spoke a little too fast when I was referencing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. So fast to the point where I jumbled a couple of words. In my mind I knew I mispronounced, but there was no malice. I had no idea the way it came across to many people," he said in a video posted to Facebook Monday night.

Kappell said as soon as he heard the mispronunciation he "put emphasis on 'King' and moved on."

"I had no idea what some people could have interpreted that as and I know some people did interpret that the wrong way. That was not a word I said, I promise you that. If you did feel that it hurt you in any way, I sincerely apologize," he said.

Slur causes uproar on social media

Clips of Kappell using the racial slur made the rounds on social media over the weekend, prompting Rochester Mayor Lovely A. Warren and the city council to release a statement Sunday.

"It is wrong, hurtful and infuriating that WHEC Channel 10 broadcast a racial slur in reference to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during its Friday News broadcast," the statement read. "It is beyond unacceptable that this occurred. There must be real consequences for the news personality involved and also for the management team that failed to immediately apologize and address the slur."

The mayor and city council called for Kappell's termination and for an examination of WHEC's response to the incident.

"It took the station nearly two days to apologize, and only after the station was shamed into doing so by a backlash on social media," the statement read.

The Rochester Association of Black Journalists (RABJ) also issued a statement Sunday condemning the use of the racial slur on air. The organization's statement said it viewed a recording of the incident provided by a viewer.

"This is completely unacceptable and contrary to all standards of broadcasting," the statement read. "We expect a complete explanation of what happened, who was responsible and why nothing was said immediately after the Friday broadcast. We also want to know what measures will be taken to prevent incidents like this from occurring in the future."

WHEC's vice president and general manager Richard A. Reingold said in a statement released Sunday that Kappell was fired after an internal investigation and discussion.

"I apologize for our broadcast of a racial slur in a reference to Martin Luther King, Jr. Park during our Friday evening broadcast," Reingold said. He added that the station believes in holding reporters and anchors "to the highest standard."

"These words have no place on News10NBC's air, and the fact that we broadcast them disheartens and disgusts me; that it was not caught immediately is inexcusable," Reingold said.

Reingold said the station's decision to fire Kappell was not influenced by the call from the city's mayor.

"We learned about this Sunday morning, unfortunately quite a while after the incident happened. The minute we learned about it we jumped on it," he said on air Sunday. "We came to the decision we did sometime before I knew of Mayor Warren's position. So I welcome her position, I understand it, I respect it, but it did not have any impact on our decision because we didn't know about it."

Kappell said in his video that he has been a meteorologist for 20 years. His LinkedIn page says he had been with WHEC since October 2017.

Kappell said he was not satisfied with the station's response to the incident.

"I'm so disappointed that my career could end this way and I'm extremely disappointed by my television station, whom I expect a certain level of support from and I did not receive at all," he said.

CNN's Melanie Whitney contributed to this report.


LAST WEEK’S DISTURBING REPORT OF “SEXUAL VIOLENCE” CONNECTED WITH THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN OF 2016 PRODUCED AN UPROAR FROM PEOPLE LIKE ME. WITHIN TWO OR THREE DAYS, A NEW REPORT WAS PUT OUT THAT THERE CERTAINLY WAS NO “VIOLENCE” OF ANY KIND, NOT EVEN AN INAPPROPRIATE PASS FROM A FELLOW TEAMMATE, BUT INSTEAD SOME LESS THAN RESPECTFUL TREATMENT TO ONE WOMAN OVER A FEMINIST COMPLAINT SHE HAD MADE EARLIER.

I DEFEND HER RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH A COMPLAINT, WHICH WEAVER SHOULD HAVE DONE ALSO. WHEN SHE THEN TOLD AN UPPER LEVEL PERSON, PROBABLY WEAVER, HE DISMISSED IT, PERHAPS IN A WAY THAT SHE FOUND INSULTING. HE CERTAINLY SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE THAT, BUT IT ISN’T A PHYSICAL CONTACT OF ANY KIND, SO THE WORD “VIOLENCE” IS UNACCEPTABLE, IF TRUTH IN THE MEDIA IS IMPORTANT. ALSO, PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY USING THE TERM “GENDER” IN THOSE ISSUES NOWADAYS, NOT “SEXUAL,” WHICH IS PHYSICAL.

IT IS TRUE, THOUGH, THAT MEN ARE OFTEN INSULTINGLY DISMISSIVE OR OTHERWISE DISRESPECTFUL TO WOMEN. SOMETIMES IT’S BECAUSE THEY REALLY DON’T WANT WOMEN TO SPEAK UP ABOUT ANYTHING, AND WOULD PREFER THAT THEY AREN’T EVEN IN THE ROOM. THAT ATTITUDE REALLY IS A BIG PROBLEM. IF THEY DO DEAL WITH HER, THEY WANT HER TO GO GET THEIR &#)+@!!! COFFEE, OR WORSE, PICK UP THEIR LAUNDRY – YES, I SAW THAT SOME YEARS AGO IN A SIMILAR COMPLAINT. IN AN OFFICE WE MUSTN’T CONSIDER “PERSONAL ASSISTANT” TO MEAN “BODY SERVANT.” IN JOBS I HAVE HAD TO WALK OR DRIVE TO THE BANK AND MAKE PAYMENTS, BUT AT LEAST THAT IS A BUSINESS MATTER.

OTHER THAN THAT, TODAY’S UPROAR IN THE PRESS CAN BE BOILED DOWN TO: WEAVER WILL NOT BE AROUND IN THAT ROLE ANYMORE, NOT TO WORRY. IF YOU WANT TO READ A BLOW BY BLOW DESCRIPTION, GO TO TODAY’S CNN ARTICLE. MY COMMENT TO THAT IS “FINE. GOOD THING.” HE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE OUR REVOLUTION ORGANIZATION ALSO. HE’S PROBABLY A GOOD MANAGER OF FINANCES AND STRATEGIES, WHICH I UNDERSTAND HE WILL BE DOING NOW. HE IS A PROBLEM ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL, ALMOST CERTAINLY, WITH PEOPLE IN GENERAL.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/09/jeff-weaver-wont-manage-sanders-campaign-1092875
ELECTIONS
Jeff Weaver won’t reprise role as Sanders campaign manager
By HOLLY OTTERBEIN 01/09/2019 04:18 PM EST

Jeff Weaver, a longtime member of Sen. Bernie Sanders' inner circle who served as campaign manager of his 2016 presidential bid, will not return to that role if the Vermont senator mounts another campaign in 2020.

A person familiar with Sanders' campaign planning confirmed the news, which was first reported by CNN.

Weaver is leaving in part because the Sanders campaign recognizes that its staff needs to be more diverse for a potential 2020 run than it was in 2016, the person said.

Progressive activists tweeted in support of the decision Wednesday. Weaver has long been a controversial figure within the Sanders movement; when he was installed as the president of the Sanders-founded nonprofit Our Revolution in 2016, a number of other staffers quit.

Weaver is expected to stay on Sanders' team in a senior adviser role. The determination that Weaver would return in a different position was made months ago, according to the person familiar with Sanders' campaign, who also said family considerations played a role in planning Weaver's place in a future campaign.


“THE UNITED STATES PAYS BY FAR THE HIGHEST PRICES IN THE WORLD FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.” THESE PRICES ARE A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF WHAT A TOTALLY UNRESTRICTED (“FREE MARKET”) WAY OF DOING BUSINESS IS, AND IT’S RESULTS. EVERY NOW AND THEN I ASK MYSELF WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE THAT AMERICANS ARE ON THE DULL-WITTED SIDE. ALL THAT BUSINESS ABOUT THE “DANGEROUS” ALIENS “STREAMING” ACROSS THE BORDER IN THE “THOUSANDS” IS IN THE SAME CATEGORY. YESTERDAY, TRUMP CLAIMED THAT “THOUSANDS” OF “TERRORISTS” HAD CROSSED THE BORDER. THAT SAME NIGHT, RACHEL MADDOW STATED IN REFERENCE TO THAT QUOTE, THAT THERE HAVE BEEN “SIX” “SUSPECTED” TERRORISTS ACROSS THE SOUTHERN BORDER. SHE ALSO SAID THAT MOST “TERRORISTS” COME THROUGH THE OFFICIAL PORTS OF ENTRY, OFTEN AS STUDENTS, AND THEN OVERSTAY THEIR VISA. THEY AREN’T HANGING AROUND IN MEXICO WAITING TO SNEAK IN. THEY’RE HERE NOW, JUST LIKE THE NEO-NAZIS TO WHOM TOO MANY AMERICANS HAVE OPENED THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS. BE SURE TO LOCK YOUR DOORS TONIGHT!

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-bernie-sanders-potential-2020-candidate-introduce-bills/story?id=60259030
Sen. Bernie Sanders, potential 2020 candidate, to introduce bills on prescription drug costs
By MARYALICE PARKS Jan 9, 2019, 11:39 AM ET

WATCH: Sen. Bernie Sanders, millennials discuss health care solutions

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, who says he is still considering a second presidential run in 2020, is teaming up with Democratic leaders in the House to put forward a series of bills that address one of the most talked about issues among voters: the rising cost of prescription drugs.

The tactic of introducing bills to outline an aspirational agenda is one the progressive senator mastered in the in the past with measures on health care, equitable wages and climate change.

On this topic, though, President Trump and his Cabinet have generally agreed that prescription drug prices are too high, leaving open the possibility that some of these Democratic bills could enjoy bipartisan support. Many of the principles outlined in Sanders’ bills ring similar to other ideas proposed by this White House.

(MORE: 'Patients deserve to know': Government wants TV ads to disclose drug prices)

Sanders will hold a press conference Thursday with Reps. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to introduce three new bills aimed at bringing down the price of prescription drugs. The issue was central to Sanders’ first presidential bid in 2016, and Democratic leaders have often cited it as a top priority for the party this year, too.

PHOTO: Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a news conference regarding the separation of immigrant children at the U.S. Capitol on July 10, 2018 in Washington.Alex Edelman/Getty Images

According to a preview sent to ABC News from Sanders’ congressional staff, the new legislative package from Sanders and the group of House Democrats includes:

- The Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, which would “peg the price of prescription drugs in the United States to the median price in five major countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan;

- The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act, to “direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D;” and

- The Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act, which to “allow Americans to import safe, low-cost medicine from Canada and other major countries.”

“The United States pays by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. This has created a health care crisis in which 1 in 5 American adults cannot afford to get the medicine they need,” Senator Sanders told ABC News in a statement. “That is why I am introducing legislation to drastically bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

“If the pharmaceutical industry will not end its greed, which is literally killing Americans, then we will end it for them,” he continued. Sanders’ staff says there will be over a dozen members co-sponsoring the bills.

Last fall, President Trump, alongside his Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, also put forward an idea about establishing an “international pricing index” to guide pricing negotiations for drugs covered. The White House though focused mostly on negotiating on behalf of Medicare Part B enrollees.

PHOTO: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a rally for Nevada Democratic candidates at the Las Vegas Academy of the Arts, Oct. 25, 2018, in Las Vegas. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Part B covers doctors’ visits and a limited amount of prescription drug costs.

A government report at the time concluded that drug manufacturers and distributors charged Medicare nearly double the prices seen in other countries. Experts say those proposals from the White House are in very nascent stages.

Sanders’ proposals would expand the authority of the Secretary of HHS to negotiate on behalf of Part D enrollees, e.g. recipients with outpatient prescription drug coverage.

Under current law, the HHS secretary is barred from negotiating directly with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare Part D enrollees.

Tricia Neuman, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told ABC News that considering both the broad public enthusiasm for any new tools or ideas that would allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices as well as both parties’ stated concern on this issue, it is possible Congress and the White House could reach some bipartisan consensus in this space in the coming years. “But, who knows,” she quibbled on the phone.

Neuman said that experts are currently debating and researching a variety of ways to lower drug prices, including methods for driving drug manufacturers to the negotiating table or emboldening the government to zero in on and set prices for specific types of drugs.

The vast majority of the public support allowing the federal government to negotiate down drug prices for Medicare recipients, according to polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

During a town hall on MSNBC last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told the audience: “Most of the things in our agenda are about bipartisan issues. The president says he wants to lower the cost of prescription drugs, so do we. That's one of our first items on the agenda.”

At the start of the year, “more than three dozen drugmakers raised the prices on hundreds of medicines in the U.S.,” according to an analysis from Rx Savings Solutions and the Wall Street Journal.

Last year, two other senators eying possible 2020 runs, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., each unveiled their own legislation on the topic, too.


I TOOK THIS STORY BECAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN EVERYBODY HAD EXPENSIVE HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES REPAIRED. THESE DAYS IT’S HARD TO FIND A REPAIR SHOP. THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS MADE ME FEEL THAT WE HAVE LOST SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT – THAT THE PRICE OF AN ITEM GENUINELY REPRESENTS ITS’ WORTH. MODERN THINGS DON’T HAVE MUCH “WORTH,” WHICH DOESN’T MEAN THAT THEY AREN’T EXPENSIVE. JUST ANOTHER WAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN SCAMMED.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46797396
Science & Environment
Climate change: 'Right to repair' gathers force
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst
9 January 2019

It is frustrating: you buy a new appliance then just after the warranty runs out, it gives up the ghost.

You can’t repair it and can’t find anyone else to at a decent price, so it joins the global mountain of junk.

You’re forced to buy a replacement, which fuels climate change from the greenhouse gases released in the manufacturing process.

But help is at hand, because citizens in the EU and parts of the USA will soon get a "right to repair" - of sorts.

This consists of a series of proposals from European environment ministers to force manufacturers to make goods that last longer and are easier to mend.

The European proposals refer to lighting, televisions and large home appliances.

At least 18 US states are considering similar laws in a growing backlash against products which can’t be prised apart because they’re glued together, or which don’t have a supply of spare parts, or repair instructions.

How will the Right to Repair happen?
European environment ministers have a series of proposals forcing manufacturers to make goods that last longer and are easier to mend. The European proposals refer to lighting, televisions and large home appliances.

Plans for the EU Ecodesign Directive are complex and controversial. Manufacturers say the proposed rules on repairability are too strict and will stifle innovation.

Consumer campaigners complain the EU Commission has allowed firms to keep control of the repair process by insisting some products are mended by professionals under the control of manufacturers.

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said: “This restricts the access of independent repairers to spare parts and information - and that limits the scope and affordability of repair services.” The EEB also wants other products like smart phones and printers included in the legislation.

How will it help the environment?
Green groups say legislation under way in Europe and the US represents progress towards saving carbon emissions and using resources more wisely.

Libby Peake from the think tank Green Alliance told BBC News: “The new rules are a definite improvement. We think they could have been better, but it’s good news that at last politicians are waking up to an issue that the public have recognised as a problem for a long time. The new rules will benefit the environment and save resources.”

What has driven the changes?
The policies have been driven by some arresting statistics.

One study showed that between 2004 and 2012, the proportion of major household appliances that died within five years rose from 3.5% to 8.3%.

An analysis of junked washing machines at a recycling centre showed that more than 10% were less than five years old.

Another study estimates that because of the CO2 emitted in the manufacturing process, a long-lasting washing machine will generate over two decades 1.1 tonnes less CO2 than a short-lived model.

Many lamps sold in Europe come with individual light bulbs that can’t be replaced. So when one bulb packs in, the whole lamp has to be jettisoned.

Isn’t it better to scrap an old appliance and buy a more efficient one?

This is no simple question. Resource analysts say, as a rule of thumb, if your current appliance is old and has a very low energy efficiency rating, it can sometimes be better in terms of lifetime CO2 emissions to replace it with a new model rated A or AA. In most other cases it produces fewer emissions sticking with the old model.

There’s another debate about how readily consumers should be allowed to mend appliances. The Right to Repair movement wants products that can be fully disassembled and repaired with spare parts and advice supplied by the manufacturer.

Some manufacturers fear that bungling DIY repairers will damage the machines they’re trying to fix, and potentially render them dangerous.

One industry group, Digital Europe, said: “We understand the political ambition to integrate strict energy and resource efficiency aspects in Ecodesign, but we are concerned that some requirements are either unrealistic or provide no added value.

“The draft regulations limit market access, deviate from internationally-recognised best practices and compromise intellectual property.”

What should I do with my broken kettle?

Will UK have to stick to the new standards after Brexit?

The British government has welcomed the new rules and will almost certainly need to replicate them if UK firms are to export to Europe.

Environment Minister Thérèse Coffey told BBC News resource efficiency was "key to improving our productivity and making best use of precious resources".

"That is why we are supporting measures in the new Ecodesign Directive product regulations to encourage repair and re-use of a range of products.”

This is a very different tone from the one adopted by critics of the EU’s previous initiatives on energy efficiency.

There were warnings that forcing vacuum cleaners to use less power would leave Britain’s floors dirty.

It transpired that the rules had forced manufacturers to make new cleaners that cleaned equally well – but using less power, thanks to better floorhead design.

Follow Roger on Twitter @rharrabin


WHAT? BLUETOOTH WAY BACK THEN? OHHHH. A PAINTBRUSH LICKER. THIS IS AN INTERESTING EXAMPLE OF THE WAY ARCHAEOLOGISTS WORK. THEY DON’T JUST MAKE UP THEIR INFORMATION OUT OF THE CLEAR BLUE SKY. THEY LOOK FOR PHYSICAL PROOF. THAT’S WHY I FIND IT SO FASCINATING. IT’S A THOUSAND YEAR-OLD MYSTERY SOLVED, AND A NEW FEMALE ARTIST OF SOME STATUS IN HER OWN TIME -- BETWEEN 997 AND 1162AD.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46783610
Science & Environment
Blue tooth reveals unknown female artist from medieval times
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
January 9, 2019 4 hours ago

Photograph -- CHRISTINA WARINNER
Image caption -- A lapis lazuli fragment trapped in the lower jaw of the medieval woman

The weird habit of licking the end of a paintbrush has revealed new evidence about the life of an artist more than 900 years after her death.

Scientists found tiny blue paint flecks had accumulated on the teeth of a medieval German nun.

The particles of the rare lapis lazuli pigment likely collected as she touched the end of her brush with her tongue.

The researchers say it shows women were more involved in the illumination of sacred texts than previously thought.

Related:
Skeleton in thigh-high boots discovery
Medieval London's murder hotspots
Medieval game board clue to lost monastery

The team had initially been initially been investigating health and diets in the Middle Ages. They set out to examine the bones of corpses at a medieval monastery in Dalheim, Germany.

The scientists analysed dental calculus - essentially dental plaque that has become fossilised on your teeth during your lifetime.

Image copyright FRANKFURT UNIVERSITY
Image caption -- Guda, a twelfth century nun and illuminator. Credited as one of the first women in Europe to create a signed self-portrait, she holds a Latin inscription reading “Guda, peccatrix mulier scripsit et pinxit hunc librum,” translated as “Guda, a sinful woman, wrote and painted this book.”

When they examined the teeth of one subject, called B78, it ultimately revealed far more than what she had eaten.

According to radiocarbon dating, the woman had lived between 997 and 1162AD and was between 45-60 years old when she died. According to the authors, the woman was average in almost every aspect - except for what was stuck to her teeth.

When the researchers dissolved samples of her dental calculus, they couldn't believe their eyes. Hundreds of tiny blue particles became visible.

"Dental calculus is really cool, it is the only part of your body that fossilises while you are still alive," senior author Dr Christina Warriner, from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, told BBC News.

"During this process it incorporates all sorts of debris from your life, so bits of food become trapped, it ends up being a bit of a time capsule of your life."

"We found starch granules and pollen but what we also saw was this bright, bright blue - and not just one or two little flecks of mineral, but hundreds of them. We had never seen that before."

Image copyright MONICA TROMP
Image caption -- A magnified view of lapis lazuli particles embedded within medieval dental calculus.

It took some major scientific sleuthing to work out what the particles were made of.

Eventually, the scientists realised they were dealing with lapis lazuli, a rare and valuable pigment, that originated from a mountain in Afghanistan.

The lapis would be ground into a powder and mixed to make ultramarine - a vivid blue, so expensive that artists like Michelangelo weren't able to afford it.

It was used in Medieval Europe to decorate only the most valuable religious manuscripts.

So how did this rarest of artistic materials end up in the teeth of a rural German religious woman?

"Based on the distribution of the pigment in her mouth, we concluded that the most likely scenario was that she was herself painting with the pigment and licking the end of the brush while painting," says co-first author Monica Tromp, also from the Max Planck Institute in Jena.

Image copyrightCHRISTINA WARINNER
Image caption -- The foundations of the church associated with a medieval women’s religious community at Dalheim, Germany

The researchers say that only scribes and painters of exceptional skill would have been entrusted with the use of this highly prized pigment.

The discovery indicates that women were playing a far more significant role in the writing and illustration of manuscripts at this time than has previously been recognised.

While there were women's monasteries in this period, it had been believed that less than 1% of books could be attributed to them before the 12th century.

Often women didn't sign their names to books as a sign of humility, but the authors also believe there was a strong male bias at the time, and women were essentially rendered invisible. The authors say that their findings are helping to set the record straight.

Image copyright OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
Image caption -- These 12th century frescoes in Cormac's chapel at the Rock of Cashel in Ireland were painted with pigments derived from lapis lazuli

"She lived at Dalheim, you can still see the ruins of the women's community, but there is no art, no books, just a fragment of a comb, there's only a handful of references in texts," said Dr Warriner.

"It was written out of history, but now we've discovered another place that women were engaged in artistic production that we had no idea about."

The researchers are keen to develop the technique, believing that many other artists who worked with a variety of mineral pigments from the period could be identified.

"I think this would be an incredible opportunity to give identity back to these people, we have lost all individuality from them."

The study has been published in the journal Science Advances.


WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN DEEP TROUBLE? I HOPE IT’S JUST ON THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF, AND NOT ALL THE WAY OVER.

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46810707
Family & Education
MPs want hunger minister role introduced
January 9, 2019 44 minutes ago

GETTY IMAGES
Image caption -- The MPs are concerned about the impact of hunger on children

A group of MPs wants the government to introduce a Minister for Hunger to respond to a growth in food insecurity in the UK - especially among children.

The Environmental Audit Committee says 19% of children under 15 in the UK live with adults who struggle to buy food - figures among the worst in Europe.

It says ministers have failed to recognise and respond to the problem.

The government says the number of children living in workless households is at a record low.

But MPs say the number of people without reliable access to affordable, nutritious food - or food insecure - is "significant and growing", with the unemployed, sick or those with children most likely to be affected.

The committee wants to see the appointment of a new minister with "responsibility and accountability for combating hunger and food insecurity within the UK".

The job would involve exploring the scale, causes and impact of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition and implementing strategies to improve the situation.

Poor pupils 'filling pockets with food' -- https://www.bbc.com/news/education-43611527
Holiday hunger cash a 'great first step' --https://www.bbc.com/news/education-44968401
Fighting holiday hunger in Birkenhead -- https://www.bbc.com/news/education-45098390

The committee's report also highlights the close relationship between hunger and obesity.

"Insufficient access to food may lead to risk-averse purchasing habits and prioritisation of low-priced, filling foods with long shelf lives - which are often nutrient poor but calorie-rich," the report says.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Work and Pensions said that, since 2010, one million people had been lifted out of absolute poverty - including 300,000 children.

"Household incomes have never been higher and the number of children living in workless households is at a record low, but we know there's more to do ensure that every family has access to nutritious, healthy food," she said.

"We already provide support through free school meals and our Healthy Start Vouchers."

'A scandal'

But Labour MP Mary Creagh, who is chairwoman of the committee, said more children were growing up in homes where parents do not have enough money to put food on the table.

"The combination of high living costs, stagnating wages and often, the roll-out of Universal Credit and the wider benefits system, means that levels of hunger in Britain are some of the highest across Europe.

"We found that nearly one in five children under 15 are living in a food insecure home - a scandal which cannot be allowed to continue.

Ms Creagh said urgent action was needed.

"This can only be addressed by setting clear UK-wide targets and by appointing a Minister for Hunger to deliver them."

Emma Revie, chief executive of The Trussell Trust, which runs more than 420 food banks across the UK, welcomed the idea of a hunger minister.

"It's time for the government to take concrete steps towards a UK where everyone has enough money for food," she said.

"Although food bank volunteers are providing vital support to those in crisis, no charity can replace people having enough money for the basics.

"To end hunger, we need to understand the true scale of the challenge, and work across government to ensure everyone is anchored from being swept into poverty."


WHILE I’VE NEVER SEEN A DOG CHASE DOWN AND EAT A BUG OF ANY KIND, I'LL BET THEY DO IN THE WILD SOMETIMES, AND ALMOST ANY CAT WILL DO IT IF THEY AREN’T FAT AND LAZY. "OH, WHAT FUN! A NICE GRASSHOPPER!" SO DO HUMANS IN MULTIPLE PARTS OF THE WORLD, AND SO WILL I, TOO, IF A TRUE FOOD CRISIS COMES. ANOTHER INTERESTING “STARVATION FOOD” IS EARTHWORMS.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46811358
Science & Environment
Climate change: Will insect-eating dogs help?
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst
January 9, 2019 1 hour ago

Do you fret that your pet pooch is blamed by environmentalists for turning rainforests into poo in the park?

Have no fear - you can now fatten Fido on black soldier flies instead of Brazilian beef.

A pet food manufacturer now claims that 40% of its new product is made from soldier flies.

It's one of many firms hoping to cash in on the backlash against beef by people concerned that the cattle are fed on soya.

These soya plantations are responsible for the release of greenhouse gases in significant quantities.

Is it good for the dog?
The key question is whether a diet of 40% soldier flies meets the nutritional needs of your beloved canine.

We put the question to a pet diet expert at the Royal Veterinary College, Aarti Kathrani. Her conclusion was a cautious "yes".

"Insects can be a very useful source of protein," she told us. "More studies are needed to show how much of these nutrients can actually be absorbed by a dog's body - but some studies suggest that insects can provide nutrients for dogs."

Does it help the climate if dogs eat flies?
At first sight it seems obvious that feeding your dog meaty food is bad for the environment. The link between humans eating meat and the allied emissions of CO2 and methane is well established - and pets are estimated to eat 20% of global meat.

It's also true that flies produce protein much more efficiently than cows - using a small percentage of the water and land.

But actually the analysis is more subtle than that - because as societies become more wealthy, people often turn to muscle meat and reject the animal's offal.

Image copyrightYORA
Image caption
The flies are brought to maturity in about 14 days

That offal is just as nutritious - and it gets made into pet food. That means that dog food is just as sustainable - or unsustainable - as humans eating meat.

In fact, if dogs were weaned off meat and on to insects, the industry would have to find another purpose for the offal. More sausage, perhaps? Or more humans eating insect protein. Or more going vegan?

Could cat food be made out of insects, too?
Dogs are omnivores - they eat more or less anything. Cats are much more choosy, because they can't make an essential amino acid, taurine. They find it instead in meat and fish.

But Dr Kathrani says studies show that insects do contain taurine, so it's possible that insects could also form a useful part of the moggie diet.

The new product on the market is from Yora, a Dutch farm that brings the flies to maturity in 14 days, fed on food waste.

There are several competitors which also produce pet food incorporating fly protein. They include Insectdog, Entomapetfood, Chippin and Wilderharrier.

Follow Roger on Twitter.


WHEN I WAS YOUNG IN THE 1960S, TWO THINGS HAPPENED. I BECAME A TEENAGER, A SPECIAL TIME IN ANYONE’S LIFE OF PAIN AND OFTEN BEWILDERMENT; AND I WENT TO A HIGH SCHOOL WHERE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING STRESSED BY BOTH TEENAGERS AND THE TEACHERS WAS THAT EVERY KID SHOULD BE “POPULAR.” EVERYWHERE YOU TURNED IN SOCIETY, “POPULAR” WAS THE WORD. THEY DIDN’T TALK ABOUT BEING KIND OR FRIENDLY. FOR A SOCIALLY SHY KID, THAT WON’T HAPPEN, AND FOR ONE WHO IS ALREADY INDIVIDUALISTIC, WHEN THEY ARE FACED WITH ANY KIND OF ABUSE CLUSTERED AROUND THAT “POPULARITY,” THEY WILL EITHER GRIEVE DEEPLY ABOUT BEING “UNPOPULAR,” OR THEY WILL LEARN TO FIGHT BACK. I LEARNED TO FIGHT BACK. DOES IT MAKE ME MORE “POPULAR?” NO, BUT IT WILL ALMOST ALWAYS STOP THE ATTACK.

IF I HAD A KID INVOLVED IN SUCH AN AGGRESSIVE FORM OF GROUP INTERACTION, I WOULD CONSIDER TAKING HIM TO A MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL FOR TRAINING, ESPECIALLY IF HE WERE SMALL AS I WAS. DON’T WORRY. MARTIAL ARTS DOESN’T CREATE BULLIES. BULLIES ALREADY EXIST. BEING ABLE TO FIGHT BACK SIMPLY PREVENTS THE KIND OF MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL ANGUISH AS THESE KIDS MUST GO THROUGH. IT MAKES THE BULLIES STEP BACK NEXT TIME THEY ENCOUNTER YOU AND LEAVE YOU ALONE. PERSONALLY, I MUCH PREFER THAT. BEING ALONE IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN BEING ABUSED.

WE ARE IN A “PACIFIST” TIME PERIOD IN THIS COUNTRY. I THINK IT IS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO BEHAVE PASSIVELY, EXCEPT IN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE SITUATIONS. HOW DOES PREY BEHAVE? PASSIVELY AND FEARFULLY. THAT ATTRACTS PREDATORS. PASSIVITY IS NOT GENTLENESS. IT IS FEAR. SURELY ALONG WITH IT MUST COME SELF-LOATHING. I HAVE A FUNNY ATTITUDE ABOUT GROUPS. I WANT TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE INDIVIDUALLY AND TOGETHER, WHAT THEIR VIEWS ARE AND HOW THEY BEHAVE. THEN I DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT I WILL SPEND MY VALUABLE TIME WITH THEM. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT I AM UNFRIENDLY, BUT THAT WHEN I ENCOUNTER A CLIQUE I PRETTY MUCH LEAVE THEM ALONE. IF THEY ARE THE SORT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE THEMSELVES OPEN AND FRIENDLY, THEN I WILL POSSIBLY FIND SOME INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE A GOOD MATCH. OTHERWISE, IT’S VERY LIKELY BETTER TO READ A BOOK.

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY SAD NEWS STORY. I AM SO GLAD TO LEARN THAT THE PARENTS ARE FILING SUIT. WE NEED MORE OF THAT. SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN IGNORING THESE THINGS FOR YEARS, PROBABLY BECAUSE QUELLING THE BULLIES IS NOT THE SPECIFIC "JOB" OF ANYBODY ON THE ADMINISTRATION. IT’S EASIER TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY. SCHOOLS SHOULD BE TEACHING KIDS RIGHT FROM WRONG AS WELL AS MATH AND READING. ALSO, IN READING THESE SEVERAL CASES, SOME OF THE SPECIFICS ARE REALLY SEVERE. “RAPING WITH A BROOMSTICK” SHOULDN’T EVEN OCCUR TO A PERSON THAT AGE. THAT SOUNDS LIKE HARD-CORE HOMOSEXUALITY TO ME. HOMOSEXUAL SEX ISN’T ALWAYS GENTLE.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46282988
US & Canada
selected
The brutal secret of school sport initiations
By Robin Levinson-King
BBC News, Toronto
JANUARY 9, 2019 5 hours ago

ART -- Hazing rituals have long been a brutal secret among high school and college sport teams. But in the #MeToo era, can teenage victims shatter the code of silence?

*This story includes some graphic descriptions of sexual assault*

When Allison Brookman arrived at Reed Custer High School to pick up her 14-year-old son Anthony from American football camp, she knew something was wrong.

"You can kind of tell when your kid is hurt or sad," she told the BBC.

"When I pulled up, I saw that same look in his face, that he was hurt."

After some needling from his mother, he admitted he had just been "jumped" by four senior football players.

But it wasn't until she took him to hospital to have his injuries examined that she heard what had really happened - that Anthony had been beaten up and sexually assaulted by members of the team as part of a violent hazing ritual.

"The first guy who slapped me twice and knocked me down, he kicked me in my right side on my ribs," Anthony told CBS in an interview.

"While the fourth one took my shorts off and they pulled my legs up so that he could get his finger to my, you know, body part."

Allison says when they heard this in the hospital examining room, she and her husband were stricken with horror.

"They didn't just beat you up, they tried fondling you?" she recalls asking.

"At that point my son looked at us and said 'don't worry mom, don't worry dad, they didn't get in me.'"

"That was probably the breaking point for both of us."

Image copyrightSUBMITTED PHOTO
Image caption -- Anthony Brookman was 14 when he says he was attacked and sexually assaulted by teammates as part of a hazing ritual.

Now the family is suing the Reed-Custer Community Unit School District 255 in Braidwood, Illinois, claiming it failed to prevent the sexual assault and for allegedly not properly responding to the incident once they became aware.

Superintendent Mark Mitchell defends the schools actions and says the players were punished "according to the terms of the School District's Athletic Code of Conduct." The school is defending the legal action.

Three of the alleged attackers have also been charged as juveniles with aggravated battery. They are not named as they were minors at the time of the incident.

As their case winds through the courts, other eerily-similar incidents have also come to light. In Maryland, four 15-year-old members of the Damascus High School junior varsity football team are accused of raping a younger teammate with a broomstick as part of a hazing ritual, and trying to rape others.

Prosecutors have told in chilling detail how the alleged attackers cornered four freshmen teammates in the locker room.

"It's time," one of them said before they ganged up on the first victim, holding him down and sodomising him with the broom handle.

They are being tried as adults. A fifth suspect is being charged as a juvenile.

Image copyrightTHE CANADIAN PRESS
Image caption -- Seven students from St Michael's College School were recently arrested and charged in connection with an alleged assault

And in the Canadian city of Toronto, seven 14- and 15-year-old football players from St Michael's College School are facing charges of gang sex assault related to three separate hazing incidents.

In one incident, a video allegedly showing a teammate being penetrated by a broom was shared online.

These high-profile cases of sexual assault have reignited the call to end hazing in sports. And in the #MeToo era, many former victims are coming out to share their story.

What is hazing?

Hazing is when members of a group deliberately embarrass or harm new or prospective members as part of a rite of passage, or initiation into the group.

"These are powerful forces that we're talking about, wanting to belong and wanting to be a part of a community," says Jay Johnson, an expert on hazing on sports teams who teaches at the University of Manitoba.

Image copyrightKATIE HORWICH
Hazing rituals can run the gamut from relatively benign - forcing team members to carry the gear to matches, or chant silly songs on campus - to extreme forms of bullying, including physical and sexual abuse.

It has been most commonly associated with university fraternities and sororities and athletic clubs, but high school groups are not immune. A 2000 survey by Alfred University found that about half of high school students reported participating in activities that qualified as hazing - while only 14% identified as being hazed.

In the US, 44 states have banned hazing.

In Canada, many universities and sport organisations have anti-hazing policies, though no federal law specifically targets the practice. Like in the St Michael's incident, police have often relied on assault laws when laying charges in hazing cases.

In the UK, the Rugby Football Union, the sport's governing body, has said initiations at university clubs are putting people off wanting to continue playing.

It claimed the traditions are partly to blame for an estimated 10,000 school leavers who recently stopped playing.

When hazing turns criminal

Most students who have been hazed have trouble realising they were, says Johnson, in part because a lot of the activities may seem harmless and like they were "just being a part of a team".

Image copyrightABC
Image caption
Fraternity members waited 12 hours before calling police to help Timothy Piazza (centre)

But hazing can turn sinister, and the practice leads to several deaths a year, often from alcohol intoxication.

Fraternity settles over student hazing death
The deadly problem with US college fraternities
Sexualised hazing is also fairly common, says Johnson.

From Texas to Australia, there have been reports of ritual sex assault on school sports teams for years.

A 2017 investigation by the Associated Press found 70 cases of teammate-on-teammate sexual assaults in US public schools between 2012-2017, which it called "the tip of the iceberg".

The cases are shocking both in their violence and their similarity, often featuring some variation of older teammates sodomising victims with anything from a fist, to a Gatorade bottle to the nozzle of a carbon-dioxide tank.

Earlier this year, an organisation called End Rape on Campus released a report saying that orientation week at Australian Universities is called "The Red Zone" by sexual assault support workers due to the combination of assaults, hazing rituals, and excessive alcohol consumption.

Code of silence

Sometimes all it takes is one bad apple to push a team to commit sexual assault, Johnson says.

"All it takes is that one person in power, or at the top of the hierarchy... a veteran player who came in who was a bit on the sadistic side, who pushes that boundary of what it can become," he says.

But hazing rituals usually stem from a toxic team culture, he says.

Traditions are passed down from year-to-year, and today's aggressors were often last year's victims. Often, coaches and other authorities turn a blind eye, Johnson says.

Image copyrightKATIE HORWICH

In their lawsuit, the Brookmans blame the school for allowing the hazing to fester on the team until it escalated to their son's assault. They also blame the school for allegedly not protecting their son from bullying after the incident.

Allison says Anthony was harassed every day by fellow students who called him a "rat". Meanwhile, she says, the alleged attackers only received a three-day game suspension.

It was the lack of action, she says, that led the family to sue.

"We just wanted to do our best to let our son see that he was somebody who was worth fighting for," she says.

Anthony now goes to a different school, and is seeing a therapist. The head coach resigned from the team, although he is still a teacher at the school.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption -- Greg Reeves is the former principal at St Michael's College School. He resigned on 22 November

Superintendant Mitchell says the student-athletes were disciplined according to school guidelines. He says he is not legally allowed to comment on individual disciplinary cases.

"We intend to vigorously defend these baseless allegations and protect the reputation of our fine School District and its staff," he said in a written statement.

In Toronto, the hazing allegations led to the resignation of school principal Greg Reeves and school president Father Jefferson Thompson.

Several alumni critiqued what they claim was the elite school's culture of "toxic masculinity" and claimed it had a "code of silence", especially once it was revealed that Principal Reeves did not immediately report the video of the alleged sexual assault.

He said that he did so the next day, after first helping the victim to tell his parents, because caring for the victim had been his first priority.

"This is a great school, and the majority of the teachers are great people. Where was the oversight? Like, what's going on with your teams? What is the mentality here? … There's a code of silence at the school," a parent told Postmedia news outlet.

#MeToo in the locker room

The Brookman's story, and the sexual assault cases in Maryland and Toronto, have come to light during an era of public reckoning about sexual violence.

From Hollywood to the Supreme Court, victims have come forward to describe how powerful institutions silenced them to protect their attackers.

Are youth sports next?

Johnson says he believes the attention that is being paid to Anthony's case, and the sexual assault charges laid in Maryland and in Toronto, show that people are beginning to think differently about hazing.

"I actually have hope that this might sort of be the flashpoint, for opening up the floodgates, similar to what happened to the #MeToo movement," Johnson says.

"That more people might start to come forward and feel empowered to share their stories."

There are signs that is starting to happen. In Toronto, prominent NHL players have revealed they were victims of sexual hazing while playing in junior ice hockey leagues, as have some alumni of St Michael's.

Skip Twitter post by @CarBombBoom13

Daniel Carcillo
✔
@CarBombBoom13
#BullyingAwarenessWeek

The year is 2002-2003 I am 17 turning 18 yrs old & it’s my @NHL draft year

I moved away from home, family & friends, to play hockey in the @OHLHockey for the @StingHockey
I endured daily bullying/abuse at the hands of veteran players

Below is my story...

3,336
12:30 PM - Nov 24, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,698 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @CarBombBoom13

Ultimately, that is why Anthony agreed to tell his story on the nightly news.

"You see a lot of hazing on TV, but that's all it is, it's the news reporter maybe talking with the other news reporter and a picture of the school," Allison recalls her son telling her.

"Nobody ever steps forward, I want people to actually see my face and see what people did to me."


LISTEN TO THIS GREAT MADDOW VIDEO. TRUMP’S CLAIM THAT “THOUSANDS OF TERRORISTS” HAVE COME THROUGH IS A REAL WHOPPER. THERE HAVE BEEN A “SUSPECTED” 6 TERRORISTS TOTAL! NBC TODAY.

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/rachel-maddow-joins-chris-hayes-to-preview-trump-s-oval-office-address-1422334019628
Rachel Maddow joins Chris Hayes to preview Trump's Oval Office address
Chris and Rachel cover The Wall as a mnemonic device and magical nonsense ahead of Trump’s Oval Office address.
Jan. 8, 2019


THEN, THE NEWS WE’VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR, IT IS VERY LIKELY NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.

Top Democrats signal indictment of Trump in office not impossible
Rachel Maddow points out the growing number of top Democratic legislators who are indicating that an indictment of Donald Trump while he is still in office should not be ruled out as a possibility versus impeachment.
Jan. 7, 2019


COMMON DREAMS TODAY

“GOVERNMENT OF, BY AND FOR THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS” – COMMON DREAMS AGAIN SAYS IT LIKE IT IS! THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY WE NEED TO EXAMINE ALL FUTURE CANDIDATES ON THEIR BASIC BELIEFS FIRST, NOT THEIR AGE, RACE, RELIGION OR GENDER.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/01/war-democratic-party-continues
Published on
Tuesday, January 01, 2019
by Common Dreams
The War for the Democratic Party Continues

The only way Democrats could lose their 2018 momentum in 2020 is to return to the same old neoliberal, corporate-friendly policies that sunk the party in 2016
byJohn Atcheson

PHOTOGRAPH -- Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (C), Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (L), Vice Chair of the Conference Elizabeth Warren (2-L) and Chair of Outreach Bernie Sanders (R) talk following a press conference. (Photo: Shawn Thew/EPA-EFE/Rex)

Elizabeth Warren just threw her hat in the ring for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. If the Democrats were smart, they’d get in line behind her, or Bernie Sanders.

Unfortunately, Pelosi, Schumer and Hoyer are doing everything in their power to keep the progressive insurgency in check, and keep their neoliberal/corporate money machine in power. Beyond the many moral and ethical problems with this, it’s just plain stupid politics. About the only way Democrats could lose their 2018 momentum in 2020 is to return to the same old neoliberal, corporate-friendly policies that lost them the election in 2016.

They’re being supported by most of the mainstream media, many of the pundits who’ve been the architects of the Democratic Party’s precipitous decline over the last few decades, and a robust and well-funded neoliberal infrastructure composed of not-for-profits, many unions, foundations, and public interest groups, who’ve gone into overdrive on their anti-Bernie campaign. It was this neoliberal mafia that helped deliver the nomination to Hillary Clinton in 2016, which in turn depressed turnout to the point that Trump was able to win the election with just over 26 percent of eligible voters.

If the shock of 2016 wasn’t enough to convince the neoliberals that they were on the wrong side of history, the lessons from 2018 should have. Specifically, turnout is critical for Democrats, and a progressive platform is critical for getting a good turnout.

But the neoliberal establishment is still marching, lemming-like, for the cliff. The names being proffered for the 2020 election include Joe Biden, Bet O’Rourke, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, and an assortment of other neoliberals. Most of them are feigning left since 2018, but the other lesson from 2016 is that folks are tired of the Democrats’ tendency to spout progressive rhetoric around election time, then spring back into the neoliberal corporate party that has left most of America behind. Since the days of the DLC and triangulation, Democrats have consistently backed policies that favored the rich at the expense of the rest of us, and people are wise to it.

Biden, O’Rourke, Booker, Gillebrand, and others in the crew are dragging around a record—like the chains of Jacob Marely’s ghost—that features campaign contributions from the usual suspects, positions that favor corporations, and tax and trade policies that screwed the middle class. Trump and the Republicans used Hillary’s hypocrisy to defeat her in 2016, and they’d likely try to do the same in 2020 – assuming Trump isn’t impeached or indicted by then. But the Republican brand can survive the loss of a single candidate. In fact, a less obviously odious GOP candidate than Trump could be an advantage to the party.

Kamala Harris remains a mixed bag; she’s sought funding from some of Hillary Clinton’s elite funders, but she’s embraced a progressive agenda. She’ll have to decide whether she wants to represent the people or the elites before she tries to launch a campaign for the presidency.

Meanwhile, the party and its neoliberal enablers are gathering against the two genuine progressives—Sanders and Warren—in a confederacy of dunces, just as they did in 2016. The result of these efforts, should they successfully block a real progressive from winning the nomination, is likely to be another November defeat to the GOP.

Pelosi’s rejected the progressive's call for a strong Green New Deal, instead setting up a committee without subpoena power, populated by members who are allowed to take contributions from fossil fuel interests, and without goals for a massive mobilization of economic measures needed to address climate change, create jobs, and foster economic equality. Worse, Pelosi appointed Rep. Kathy Castor to head up the committee. Among Castor’s chief campaign funders is one of those split-the-difference PACs that have funded corporate-friendly lawmakers like Orrin Hatch, Claire McCaskill, and Joe Donnelly. Both McCaskill and Donnelly were voted out of office in the 2018 mid-terms, and both have issued warnings about the Democrats moving too far to the left.

But progressive ballot measures did well in McCaskill’s Missouri, suggesting that the state is more progressive than it seems. Indeed, progressive ballot measures did well across the country, winning in blue states, purple states, and deep red states.

The fact is, on an issue-by-issue basis, Americans overwhelmingly poll progressive. They favor a living minimum wage, aggressive action on climate, Medicare for All, marijuana reform, more regulation on Wall Street and big banks, a fairer tax code, a more tolerant foreign policy, prison reform, gun control … on and on it goes. And this is true even in red states.

This poses a conundrum. Why don’t people who back progressive issues consider themselves progressives? The answer is that a decades-long coup has successfully wielded hate, fear, jingoism, money and skilled rhetoric to brand “liberal” and government as negative things. No longer is government the agent of the New Deal, an entity that leveled the playing field, represented the little guy, created world class infrastructure and an educational system that was the envy of the world while fostering research and development that made the U.S. a leader in science and gave it an economy that was prosperous, fair, and just. Instead, it became an incompetent agent that took our money, limited our freedoms, and championed “them” … you know, the others.

What’s needed is a people’s revolution and a radical insurgency that restores government to the governed. The reason the coup’s propaganda stuck is because it was essentially true. Republicans starved government even as they discredited it, but Democrats did little to counter the myth. Indeed, neoliberals embrace much of the conservative mantra that holds that markets will deliver all good things by pure serendipity, if we would only get government out of the way. The resulting government of, by and for the rich and corporations left the vast majority of Americans out of the economic growth we’ve enjoyed since 1980. Between 1980 and 2015, the top .01 percent saw their income rise by 322 percent, while income for the bottom 90 percent rose by just .03 percent. No wonder people are angry.

Neoliberals and centrists like Pelosi et. al. hope they can win by telling us all how bad Trump is, rather than what they stand for. They also rely on identity politics to tell us who they purport to represent, again, often at the expense of backing a positive agenda for change that would actually help the various constituencies Democrats are claiming to support. And that might win an election or two, but it won’t solve our problems, and it won’t restore sanity to our political process, and ultimately, it will assure that Democrats are not a majority party.

As long as a third of us are angry, disenfranchised, and left out of the economy, we will continue to get demagogues, hatemongers and bullies elected into office. And as long as Democrats embrace neoliberalism, the justifiably angry and disgruntled third will have a better shot at getting their demagogues elected, as real progressives stay home, justifiably filled with cynicism.

The thing about power, is that it is relinquished reluctantly, it becomes an end in and of itself, and it builds an infrastructure that is often impervious to the public will. The neoliberals controlling the Democratic Party have done just that. Their network of donors, their not-for-profits, their press and media and pundits, will continue to back the neoliberal tenets they’ve been embracing for decades now – not because it’s worked. The free market/small government prescription has failed utterly and miserably for all the but the wealthiest and most powerful. But this system is their ticket to their elite status, and they won’t abandon it willingly.

What’s needed is a people’s revolution and a radical insurgency that restores government to the governed. Nothing short of that will prevent future Trumps, or solve our very real problems.

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

John Atcheson
screen_shot_2017-07-26_at_9.09.47_pm.pngJohn Atcheson is author of the novel, A Being Darkly Wise, and he has just completed a book on the 2016 elections titled, WTF, America? How the US Went Off the Rails and How to Get It Back On Track, available from Amazon. Follow him on Twitter @john_atcheson


THIS ARTICLE REALLY LAYS OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM FOR ME ABOUT THE CURRENT “MAINSTREAM” DEMS IS. THEY AREN’T DEMOCRATS ANYMORE. IT’S LIKE LOOKING IN THE MIRROR AND SEEING SOMEONE ELSE. WE USED TO BE A PARTY OF GOOD PEOPLE, BUT NOT WE ARE A PARTY OF CYNICAL WANNABE WINNERS. GETTING AND MAINTAINING A POWER POSITION AS THEIR MAIN GOAL MAKES THEM UNINTERESTING TO ME. I WANT THEM TO BE INTERESTED IN HELPING PEOPLE AND OUR COUNTRY, AND DOING IT ASSERTIVELY. CORPORATE ROBOTS WON’T DO THAT. ALL THIS PAYGO STUFF IS ESPECIALLY DISTURBING TO BE. LOOKS TO ME LIKE ONE MORE THING THAT PELOSI AND OTHERS ARE DOING WHICH BENEFITS THE REPUBLICANS RATHER THAN US.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/06/self-inflicted-pay-go-rule-democratic-victory-2020-just-got-harder
Published on
Sunday, January 06, 2019
by Common Dreams
With Self-Inflicted Pay-Go Rule, Democratic Victory in 2020 Just Got Harder
Is Pelosi doing the Republican's work for them?
byJohn Atcheson

PHOTOGRAPH -- "It will take money and fiscal tools and policies to create the kind of investments in renewable energy infrastructure that would allow us to preserve a livable climate," writes Atcheson. "Pay-go makes that kind of investment more difficult." (Photo: House Dems / flickr / cc)

The day after I wrote this, "… Pelosi, Schumer and Hoyer are doing everything in their power to keep the progressive insurgency in check, and keep their neoliberal/corporate money machine in power," Nancy Pelosi and the neoliberals in Congress committed political harikari and gutted the entire Democratic Party, by making "pay-go" a part of the House rules.

What this means is that a piece of legislation must offset costs, either by cutting somewhere else or by raising revenue. On the surface, this seems nothing less than prudent. In fact, it is already the established practice in the House. But in terms of politics it is the most colossally stupid idea to appear in a very long time. It’s also morally bankrupt.

Politics aside, paygo is morally bankrupt

Pundits and the press are reporting on Paygo as an intra-party fight … with Pelosi and the "adults" coming out on top, and the progressive insurgents losing. But here's the deal: the real conflict is between having a viable life-sustaining climate, and having one that cannot support civilization as we now know it. It’s between having a health care system that delivers health to the people, not wealth to the pharmaceutical corporations and the health insurance industry. It's between developing an economy that benefits us all, versus one that exclusively benefits the top 1 percent.

Climate change, in particular, is an existential threat that must be tackled immediately. It will take money and fiscal tools and policies to create the kind of investments in renewable energy infrastructure that would allow us to preserve a livable climate. Pay-go makes that kind of investment more difficult, and it makes propping up the old interests like fossil fuel companies easier. Of course, Pelosi already sabotaged the climate effort by setting up a weak sister select committee with little authority and even less power.

The thing is, these investments would pay for themselves many times over, but pay-go—with its myopic focus on the short term—obscures that fact.

We face monumental challenges, and each of them has a moral and ethical component that is far more important than the political horserace the press loves to talk about.

We need to completely revamp our health care system. We need to restructure our fiscal policies to spread prosperity to all, not just a few CEOs. We need to rebuild our national infrastructure, which is crumbling around our collective feet. We need to restore a semblance of democracy to our elections. And finally, we need to launch an unprecedented national and global effort to save us from the planetary devastation that would come from a climate that is just 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. On our present course, we're headed for 4 degrees warmer or more.

These could be complimentary goals. The fiscal, technological and social justice challenges can be met in the context of a national Green New Deal that creates well-paying jobs, not just McJobs; that uses fiscal tools to cut carbon while spreading wealth more equitably; that rebuilds infrastructure in a more sustainable way. The opportunities for synergy are nearly unlimited. And the politics of that kind of effort could ignite a progressive revolution that would sweep Democrats into power and make it a majority party once again.

But even if you're ignoring the moral and existential challenges we face and—like most of the mainstream media—reporting on pay-go in the context of the political horse-race, it’s still a stupid idea.

Doing the Republican’s sabotage for them

For the last several decades, the political war between the Democrats and Republicans has gone essentially as follows. When Democrats were in power, Republicans screamed at the top of their lungs about the danger of deficits, not because they actually cared about deficits, but because they wanted to prevent Democrats from doing anything that might expand government's powers, particularly in manner that suggested government was capable of doing anything positive.

Having constrained and discredited the Democrats, they often regained power, and when they did, they ignored fiscal prudence and exploded the deficit. Doubt that? Check the facts. Since Reagan, Republican administrations have presided over the biggest increases in the deficits, and the same is true when Republicans controlled Congress. And why did they create deficits? Because for the most part, they gave massive tax cuts to the uber wealthy, special interests and corporations.

The explosion of the deficit by Trump and the Republican congress as a result of their tax cut for corporations and the rich is just the latest example of their hypocrisy.

So, when Democrats have been in power Republicans were all about fiscal responsibility, deficit scolding, and prudence – mostly with an eye to preventing Democrats from doing anything popular. However, when they've controlled the budget, it's giant tax giveaways to the rich, exploding deficits notwithstanding.

Now, along comes Pelosi, and she’s decided the Democrat's best move is to do the deficit scolding—with the constraints they create—for the Republicans.

The final political issue around pay-go is a little more subtle, but no less important. The fact is, Democrats haven't won an election in decades; Republicans have lost them. As I noted above, Republicans have been engaging in a decades long strategy to discredit government. But they've also used a well-funded campaign to create scapegoats to keep the attention off the fact that economic policies like "trickle-down" and "supply side" don't work. Since before Reagan, Republicans have been creating and harnessing issues around hate, fear, jingoism, xenophobia, sexism and genderism to distract and divide us. Their campaign has created an inchoate rage among many Americans, particularly non-urban whites and those from rural areas who have been left out of any economic gains we've seen.

Democrats have been loath to confront the hate machine, just as they've been reluctant to champion a New Deal-style government that represents the people over the plutocracy. This means that historically, real progressive voters were cynical, disaffected, and less likely to vote than they might otherwise have been.

Conversely, the anger and rage manufactured by the Republican fear machine, creates a constituency that is inflamed, uninformed and passionate. They show up, they vote, and as a result, they win. The only way they lose is when Republican policies are so overtly pro-oligarchy, or so explicitly damaging to the country—as with Bush's recession and his Iraq folly—that they arouse a sufficient degree of fear and loathing among the rest of the disaffected that they also show up and vote.

The 2018 midterms were one of the Democrats' first real victories, won by the positions they advocated, not by the fear and loathing created by Republican overreach. Trump's two-year reign of error and terror were sufficiently shocking that progressives ran for office, progressive ballot measures populated many ballots, and progressive citizens showed up and voted. As a result, Democrats won. Even the neoliberals seemed to understand that the tide had turned, as many who'd run from Obamacare in the disastrous 2014 mid-terms, ran on it in 2018.

So just as the Democrats had the opportunity to develop a platform that addressed the needs of people and to become a majority party again, Pelosi and the neoliberals imposed pay-go on the party, making the kind of bold initiatives that could build on 2018's progressive momentum much more difficult, and creating a giant buzz-kill for the progressive energy that could have saved their party.

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


PAYGO OR GO – SEE THE ARTICLES HERE BY WIKIPEDIA AND theweek.com. I STILL FIND IT CONFUSING, BUT HOPEFULLY THESE TWO WILL HELP MOST READERS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO
PAYGO
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
PAYGO (Pay As You GO) is the practice in the United States of financing expenditures with funds that are currently available rather than borrowed.

Budgeting

The PAYGO compels new spending or tax changes not to add to the federal debt. Not to be confused with pay-as-you-go financing, which is when a government saves up money to fund a specific project. Under the PAYGO rules, a new proposal must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds.[1

The goal of this is to require those in control of the budget to engage in the diligence of prioritizing expenses and exercising fiscal restraint.

An important example of such a system is the use of PAYGO in both the statutes of the U.S. Government and the rules in the U.S. Congress. First enacted as part of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (which was incorporated as Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990), PAYGO required all increases in direct spending or revenue decreases to be offset by other spending decreases or revenue increases. It was thought that this would control increases in deficit spending. Direct spending (or "mandatory spending") is largely composed of "entitlement spending," which means that a group of beneficiaries are entitled to a benefit and, without further legislative action, the government must provide that benefit—hence it is considered to be "mandatory." Only by legislative action can the benefit be either expanded or reduced. If a benefit is expanded or increased, that increase in direct spending must be offset by an increase in revenue or a decrease in direct spending.

In terms of revenue, PAYGO is designed to control revenue reductions. If revenue is estimated to be reduced through a reduction in tax rates of any kind or other effects on revenue collected by the Federal Government, that effect on the deficit must be offset either through increased tax rates or increase in revenue collection elsewhere, or spending reductions of the same amount.

Social insurance

In social insurance, PAYGO refers to an unfunded system in which current contributors to the system pay the expenses for the current recipients. In a pure PAYGO system, no reserves are accumulated and all contributions are paid out in the same period. The opposite of a PAYGO system is a funded system, in which contributions are accumulated and paid out later (together with the interest on it) when eligibility requirements are met.

U.S. Social Security

An important example of such a PAYGO system in this second sense is Social Security in the U.S. In that system, contributions are paid by the currently employed population in the form of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), while recipients are mostly individuals of at least 62 years of age. Social Security is not a pure PAYGO system, because it accumulates excess revenue in the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds (OASDI).


https://theweek.com/articles/815501/what-paygo-why-are-democrats-fighting-over
What is 'PAYGO' and why are the Democrats fighting over it?
Jeff Spross
January 4, 2019

ABOUT Jeff Spross
BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS CORRESPONDENT
Jeff Spross is the economics and business correspondent at TheWeek.com. He was previously a reporter at ThinkProgress.

IMAGE -- Illustrated | DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, Tanarch/iStock

With the start of the new Congress on Thursday, Democrats officially took over the House of Representatives. Right off the bat, the party began fighting internally over the basics of its budget process. That might sound wildly arcane, but it's actually a fight that reveals the growing power struggle between the Democratic Party's establishment and its insurgent left wing over the very foundation of the party's economic agenda.

At issue is the so-called "PAYGO" rule, which stands for "pay as you go" and is pretty much what it sounds like: a rule that Congress must pay for its budget decisions as it makes them, rather than pass legislation that increases deficit spending on net. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party old guard want to resurrect PAYGO. The party's up-and-coming progressive wing — led by newly-sworn-in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Cali.) — is opposed to the idea.

We can quickly dispense with the economic merits of PAYGO: they're essentially non-existent. Federal deficit spending is a positive good, at least whenever the economy is below full employment, which it basically always is. Setting that aside, the federal government also controls the supply of the currency, meaning a debt crisis is literally impossible. Federal deficit spending at the wrong time might increase inflation, but that's about it.

There are actually two PAYGO rules. One is merely a point of order for Congress: an internal rule for how the legislature handles debate and what bills it brings up for votes. That's what the Democrats are debating. The other PAYGO rule is an actual federal law.

Both versions of PAYGO have been popping in and out of existence over the last few decades. The federal law was first established in 1990, then allowed to expire in 2002. Congress passed a new PAYGO law in 2010, which remains in effect today. Whenever Congress adjourns, if everything it passed in that session winds up increasing net deficit spending, federal law requires the executive branch to apply across-the-board spending cuts to balance out the numbers.

The congressional rule says that, in the course of its internal deliberations, Congress won't pass bills without making them deficit neutral. And each chamber — the House and the Senate — has its own version of the rule. In 2011, Republicans replaced the House's version of PAYGO with "CUTGO," which requires spending cuts to offset new spending increases, but doesn't require offsets for tax cuts. What Democratic leadership wants to do is ditch CUTGO and go back to the original PAYGO rule for the House of Representatives. The progressives would rather have neither.

That sums up the legislative technicalities. The politics of the PAYGO debate are just as puzzling.

Any federal law passed by Congress and the president can also be waived by Congress and the president. Any internal procedural rule Congress imposes on itself, it can also waive. And this has happened over and over with PAYGO. Versions of the rule were suspended to pass everything — from the GOP's 2017 tax cut package, to the 2012 extension of the Bush tax cuts, to the 2008 bank bailouts, and the Democrats' 2009 economic stimulus.

In other words, both parties are pure opportunists. They tend to pass the PAYGO rules either to concern-troll the opposing party when it holds the White House, or to prove to their own moderates that they're "serious" and "responsible." And both parties have temporarily waived the rules whenever they got in the way of big bills they wanted to pass.

That's the strangest part: The assumption that deficits are always bad, and "paying for" spending is always good, is already ubiquitous across both parties in Washington. As a result, in the unusual circumstance where a congressional majority is willing to pass a bill that's deficit-financed, there's also a congressional majority willing to suspend PAYGO pretty much by definition. Indeed, the Congressional Progressive Caucus straight-up said that Democratic leadership "have committed to us that PAYGO will not be an impediment to advancing key progressive priorities in the 116th Congress." As a result, the Caucus is going to go ahead and support the return of PAYGO.

Progressive opponents make the straightforward point that, even if the rule will be waived in practice, re-instituting PAYGO will make it at least marginally harder for Democrats to pass the big ticket items that are revving up their own base.

Notably, the Democratic Party old guard that supports PAYGO really hasn't bothered arguing for the rule on the merits. Instead, they argue it doesn't really matter, since the Senate still has its own PAYGO rule. Pelosi's office also offered a kind of 11-dimensional chess strategic justification: If Democrats don't impose PAYGO on themselves, and pass deficit increases, the federal PAYGO law will kick in. And it would direct Trump's Office of Management and Budget to impose mandatory cuts on a bunch of different programs, including Medicare, to offset the deficit increase. Democrats would like to avoid that — if offsets must happen, they'd like to make sure they take the form of tax hikes or spending cuts friendly to liberal priorities. The way to do that, Democratic leadership argues, is to pass the offsets themselves by adhering to their own congressional PAYGO rule.

Under that logic, the first goal should be to kill the federal law entirely, which would then make it safe to abandon the Congressional PAYGO rule. And the Congressional Progressive Caucus did say leadership will allow them to propose a bill to that effect. The real test of the leadership's good faith will be if they allow bills eliminating the federal law to move forward.

At any rate, it looks like Democratic leadership will be able to pass the PAYGO rule. The positive spin on the fight is that it's put the merits of the debate front-and-center like never before. But the darker interpretation is that resurrecting PAYGO will give Democratic leadership more centralized control over what bills make their way through the House. And that will allow the party's old guard to keep the rising progressive wing on a tighter leash.


IN PROMOTING MORE AND MORE PROGRESSIVES, WE ARE BENEFITING THE PARTY, SINCE THE PROGRESSIVES ARE WORKING FOR THE GOALS THAT MOST AMERICANS NOWADAYS WANT, IF POLLS ARE TO BE BELIEVED. I BELIEVE THAT THE WAY TO WIN IS TO BOLDLY FOLLOW THE PROGRESSIVE GOALS AND FORGET ABOUT APPEASING THE BIG CORPORATE AND WALLSTREET DONORS. AS FOR MAKING DISAFFECTED REPUBLICANS COME OVER TO OUR SIDE, FORGET ABOUT IT.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/07/wide-bipartisan-majority-new-poll-affirms-key-progressive-demand-congress-should-act
Published on
Monday, January 07, 2019
byCommon Dreams
By Wide, Bipartisan Majority, New Poll Affirms Key Progressive Demand: Congress Should Act to Lessen Crushing Student Debt
New poll comes on heels of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) saying that students are "shouldering a trillion and a half dollars in student loan debt and it's crushing an entire generation."
byAndrea Germanos, staff writer

PHOTOGRAPH -- "People deserve a future unencumbered by the burden of student debt," said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). (Photo: Joe Brusky/flickr/cc)

A new poll out Monday points to a progressive mandate for the 116th Congress—it's "extremely important" to do something about the crushing student debt crisis, now at a record high $1.465 trillion, a bipartisan majority says.

The Politico/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health survey asked Americans to prioritize six educational policy areas, and according to a bipartisan majority—79 percent—"finding ways to lessen student debt" should be the top priority. That belief was backed by 87 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Republicans who said tackling student debt was "extremely important."

The poll also revealed strong support for "increasing spending on K-12 public education." Overall, 76 percent of respondents said it was an extremely important priority, landing it the number two spot. That strong backing came from 88 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans.

As Siona Peterous recently laid out at Inequality.org, "With more than 44.5 million people in some type of student loan debt, it's increasingly becoming part of the platforms of high-profile progressive policymakers."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for one, has denounced the "grotesque amounts" of education-related debt plaguing former students, while newly-sworn in Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) recently declared student debt "nothing but a continuation of class divides that persist because of structural inequity."

"People deserve a future unencumbered by the burden of student debt," she said, "and the money they save will be immediately put back into our economy."

For her part, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who recently threw her name into the 2020 presidential race, said on Saturday that students are "shouldering a trillion and a half dollars in student loan debt and it's crushing an entire generation."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do.

RELATED ARTICLES

As Workers Win Local Pay Hikes for 2019, Sanders Says 'We Must Raise Federal Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour'

The War for the Democratic Party Continues

With Deadline Looming, Groups Urge Public to Speak Out Against DeVos' Plan to Steamroll Rights for Sexual Assault Survivors

'Let's Get Our Priorities Right': Outrage as Bipartisan Group of Senators Pushes Bill to Punish Boycotts of Israel Amid Shutdown