tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18996067662464336082024-02-08T00:16:56.258-05:00Prove Me WrongJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger866125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-9170227270637394972022-12-03T12:02:00.001-05:002022-12-03T12:02:29.460-05:00Links regarding Russia/Ukraine and alleged war crimes<p>Mass graves filled by Ukraine's fascist Tornado Battalion <a href="https://twitter.com/eireacht/status/1583586173347254272">are uncovered</a> from 2015.</p><p>From 2016, a top Ukrainian lawmaker <a href="https://twitter.com/morphonios/status/1508628540320882696">discusses the Tornado Battalion's rape of many</a>, including a baby. The evidence is phone recorded videos. After their conviction and imprisonment <a href="https://twitter.com/morphonios/status/1508628540320882696">Zelensky had them released to fight Russia</a>.</p><p>Russians <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-soldiers-supplied-with-viagra-to-rape-ukrainians-un-official-2022-10">accused of using Viagra to rape women</a>. UN official that espouses this claim <a href="https://twitter.com/theLemniscat/status/1591078828323241984">has no evidential basis for it</a> and doesn't care. More baseless rape allegations <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/lyudmila-denisova-ukraine-commissioner-human-rights-removed-russian-sexual-assault-claims-1711680">lead to firing of Ukrainian official</a>.</p><p>Just prior to Ukraine's entry into Bucha we have <a href="https://t.me/readovkanews/30049">a video</a> of Ukrainians killing civilians aligned with Russia as signified by the white arm bands This is a few miles from Bucha. In Bucha after Ukraine enters a city they announce a <a href="https://en.lb.ua/news/2022/04/02/12441_special_forces_regiment_safari.html">cleansing operation</a> of what they call Russian saboteurs and accomplices. Many of the executed have white arm bands or have hands tied with a white cloth that may have been their arm band (see <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-street-corpse-with-hands-bound-bullet-wound-head-2022-04-03/">here</a>). A Ukrainian military leader is reported to have posted a video (link within <a href="https://mronline.org/2022/04/07/staged-massacre-in-bucha/">this article</a>) where a soldier asks if it is OK to shoot people without the blue arm band. The blue band signifies alliance with Ukraine. The response is yes. The NY Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/world/europe/bucha-ukraine-bodies.html">publishes</a> satellite images showing bodies in the streets prior to the Russian withdrawal. The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/24/dozens-bucha-civilians-killed-flechettes-metal-darts-russian-artillery">publishes evidence</a> that people were killed with cluster munitions, which they attribute to Russia. Russia had complete control of the city at the time, so it's not explained why they would be shelling their own city. The article points out that though they are not banned by international law human rights groups have sought to ban them. <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/surgeons-ukraines-rebel-donetsk-confirm-cluster-bomb-usage-205747600.html">We know Ukraine uses these kinds of munitions</a>. In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPvsOqY_gsk&t=3482s">this video</a> Scott Ritter claims that Ukraine showed the rounds that were used to fire the flechettes and it turns out they were 120 mm rounds which Russia doesn't use but Ukraine does. Many months after the claims attributing this crime to Russia are made PBS does a piece on the crime and <a href="https://youtu.be/Y8kt9RUpYqk">still doesn't have good evidence</a>.</p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/1592593237902036992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">AP reports</a> a Russian attack on Poland based on "anonymous sources". This has potential to spark WWIII. The claim is later admitted to be false.</p><p>An attack on a residential building in Kramatorsk is blamed on Russia. Later <a href="https://twitter.com/theLemniscat/status/1595760051545047041">it is recognized</a> that the missile came from Ukraine.</p><p>When Ukrainians take control of a city they say that they hunt down what they see as collaborators and <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11284819/How-Ukrainian-intelligence-chiefs-tracking-collaborators-worked-Russians.html">shoot them like pigs</a>.</p><p>Russian POWs <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/28/world/ukraine-russia-war#a-video-shows-russian-prisoners-of-war-in-ukraine-being-beaten-and-shot-in-their-legs">beaten and shot in the legs</a>.</p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/ProfessorsBlogg/status/1595785834783023104">Here</a> 3 Russian POWs forced to their knees where they are executed.</p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/ArthurM40330824/status/1595482097162018817">Open swastika display</a> in Ukrainian mall.</p><p>Ukrainian soldiers have a <a href="https://twitter.com/Rasputinish/status/1595468831111127046">trembling man in a makeshift coffin</a>. I did read reports that the coffin was burned with the man inside.</p><p>Several Russian soldiers ordered to lie on their stomach, <a href="https://twitter.com/dissentralintel/status/1593558077541867520">they are executed with head shots</a>.</p><p>Ukrainian fascist Maksym Zhorin publishes a video showing <a href="https://twitter.com/VasilijProzorov/status/1579110067181301762">bodies of civilians being dumped into a mass grave</a>. <a href="https://www.rt.com/russia/564406-mass-burial-video-investigation/">He later implied</a> that Russia was responsible after deleting it from his Telegram channel.</p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/dijoni/status/1585510992250707968">A collection of western headlines</a> about Ukraine's Nazi problem prior to February, now being downplayed to manufacture American consent for our support of the same people.</p>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-7460751587836389842022-10-21T00:19:00.000-04:002022-10-21T00:19:21.875-04:00Some Links Related to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict<p>21 November 2013 - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan">a large protest within Kyiv</a> erupts due to unhappiness with the decision to align more with Russia than western Europe.</p><p>4 February 2014 - a phone call between Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt is <a href="https://youtu.be/MSxaa-67yGM">leaked to Youtube</a>. In this call Nuland expresses a preference that Arseney Yatsenyuk be installed as Prime Minister in the post Yanukovych government.</p><p>20 February 2014 - a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Casualties">massacre</a> of dozens of protesters occurs and is soon attributed to the police forces of Yanukovych. A detailed study was later conducted and published by Ivan Katchonovski that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Katchanovski">purports to show</a> that the victims were killed by anti-government pro-Maidan supporters (full paper <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266855828_The_Snipers'_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine">here</a>) as part of a false flag operation. Video description of what happened <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DLa9rxZuYA&t=1211s">here</a>.</p><p>22 February 2014 - Yanukovych <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#February_2014:_Revolution">flees to Donetsk, later to Russia</a>.</p><p>27 February 2014 - Yatsenyuk is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk">installed as Prime Minister</a>.</p><p>16 March 2014 - in Crimea a referendum is held to be absorbed by Russia. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum">It passes with more than 95% support</a>. It is roundly condemned in the west as a sham, though <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190828072822/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-02-06/one-year-later-crimeans-prefer-russia">subsequent polling from a German research company</a> showed that one year later the support for the referendum remained extremely high, comparable to the rate of support indicated in the referendum.</p><p>2 May 2014 - Right wing Ukrainian elements <a href="https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/ukrainian-rightists-burn-alive-39-at-odessa-union-building/">burn dozens of anti-Maidan protesters</a> alive by setting fire to the Trade Unions Hall in Odessa, which is part of eastern Ukraine that is predominantly Russian.</p><p>5 May 2014 - the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment">Azov Battalion</a> is formed. They are a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine that adheres to Nazi ideology. They would play the key role in the Ukrainian war effort in Donbass. They were incorporated into the formal Ukrainian military in November 2014. Nazi elements in Ukraine would later be downplayed in western sources like it is fake Russian propaganda, but it was widely discussed prior to February 2022, for instance <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955">here</a>, <a href="https://youtu.be/sEKQsnRGv7s">here</a>, <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/international/359609-the-reality-of-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-is-far-from-kremlin-propaganda/">here</a>.</p><p>12 February 2015 - the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements">Minsk II agreements are signed</a>, which provide a framework for peace in Ukraine. The Donbass regions would remain part of Ukraine but would be granted some autonomy.</p><p>25 September 2015 - video is released of international relations expert John Mearsheimer <a href="https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4?t=2619">shockingly accurately predicting the future of Ukraine</a>.</p><p>14 July 2016 - <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/07/534392?fbclid=IwAR3UkCwE3qE0Z6D0VkroO5Iz267khhzFUGFqs6bea-Zao8ejpm4j0YJcqTQ">UN news report</a> discusses the release of a UN study documenting widespread killings by Ukrainian forces in Donbass of civilians mostly due to indiscriminate shelling of residential areas.</p><p>30 December 2016 - Senators Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and Amy Klobuchar meet with Ukrainian troops where Graham <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/us-senators-praise-ukrainian-marines-slam-vladimir-putin-russia-john-mccain-lindsey-graham/">declares</a> "Your fight is our fight. 2017 will be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of a Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price. Our fight is not with the Russian people but with Putin. Our promise to you is to take your cause to Washington, inform the American people of your bravery, and make the case against Putin to the world."</p><p>28 July 2017 - Documentary starring Oliver Stone, <a href="https://youtu.be/pKcmNGvaDUs">Ukraine on Fire</a>, is released that makes the case that the Euromaidan protests were exploited by members of the US government to orchestrate a coup and compel Ukraine to embrace the neoliberal economic aid package preferred by the US. In 2019 a follow up documentary, <a href="https://youtu.be/jhu3lfgHhCI">Revealing Ukraine</a>, was released that discussed more evidence related to the coup. George Friedman, director of Stratfor, would call it the <a href="https://newcoldwar.org/stratfor-chiefs-most-blatant-coup-in-history-interview-from-dec-2014/">most blatant coup in history</a>. Ray McGovern <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppD_bhWODDc&t=1943s">says the same</a>.</p><p>24 April 2019 - the Pentagon commissioned report <a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html">Overextending and Off Balancing Russia</a> is released by the Rand Corporation. It proposes providing lethal aid to Ukraine, but warns that this could provoke a Russian invasion. The lethal aid was subsequently provided.</p><p>20 May 2019 - Zelensky assumes office as president, having been elected on a peace with Russia platform. He is <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/10/caitlin-johnstone-if-the-us-wanted-peace-in-ukraine/">immediately threatened with death</a> by extremist right wingers if he attempts to pursue this path and is forced to back down.</p><p>4 December 2021 - the Biden administration says <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/90873607-8a8a-48fb-8cb0-3414e277bf25">Russia will invade Ukraine in early 2022</a>.</p><p>9 December 2021 - Scott Ritter <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLpPyuzxSf4&t=71s">does not believe Russia will invade</a>.</p><p>18 December 2021 - Moscow <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/12/18/1065470550/russia-envoy-says-moscow-might-up-the-ante-if-the-west-ignores-its-demands">warns</a> that it may escalate if its concerns about NATO expansion into Ukraine are not addressed.</p><p>5 January 2022 - Colonel Douglas MacGregor <a href="https://youtu.be/zkYgXQo2aQs?t=77">believes Russia will invade</a>, to the surprise of Aaron Mate, who is among my most admired journalists.</p><p>5 February 2022 - leader of a Ukrainian neo-Nazi organizations <a href="https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/1504140921499267081">says</a> were it not for the Nazis Maidan would have been a gay pride parade.</p><p>15 February 2022 - Russian representatives <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080774883/russians-scoff-at-western-fears-of-ukraine-invasion">angrily deny</a> any intention to invade Ukraine.</p><p>18 February 2022 - Moscow <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-sharp-increase-shelling-donbass-is-alarming-2022-02-18/">expresses alarm</a> at sudden increase in shelling of Donbass by Ukraine and criticizes the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OCSC) for glossing over it.</p><p>21 Feb 2022 - Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris of the Duran seem skeptical of an invasion, but <a href="https://youtu.be/4ko5Y2Jgtnw">discuss</a> how the renewed and more intense Ukrainian offensive that is getting underway in Donbass may punch through defensive lines and this could affect Moscow's current intentions.</p><p>16-22 February 2022 - the <a href="https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports">OCSE</a> is <a href="https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1530405122840227841">recording the surge in shelling of Donbass</a> that Moscow had raised.</p><p>24 February 2022 - Russia launches what they call a Special Military Operation.</p><p>11 March 2022 - the Pentagon <a href="https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/11/2002954612/-1/-1/0/FACT-SHEET-THE-DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE'S-COOPERATIVE-THREAT-REDUCTION-PROGRAM-BIOLOGICAL-THREAT-REDUCTION-PROGRAM-ACTIVITIES-IN-UKRAINE.PDF">releases a fact sheet</a> describing the biological research facilities it funds in Ukraine, claiming that it is for peaceful purposes. Despite their peaceful nature Victoria Nuland is <a href="https://youtu.be/ydSf57SRtcQ">very concerned</a> the Russians will gain control of these facilities.</p><p>28 March 2022 - the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/28/ukraine-kyiv-russia-civilians/?fbclid=IwAR2-Ugfa7FH5F2hKOCjKKKMg_sXgmg26mPcG1q-escl6CCqepQpph18p9eQ">Washington Post</a> admits that Ukrainian forces are using civilian areas as a staging ground, undermining any future claim that Russia has committed war crimes by attacking civilian areas.</p><p>Early April 2022 - Russian and Ukrainian negotiators <a href="https://archive.ph/14c2N#selection-4295.45-4299.282:~:text=Russian%20and%20Ukrainian,number%20of%20countries">tentatively agree on a peace deal</a> during meetings in Istanbul.</p><p>9 April 2022 - Boris Johnson arrives in Kyiv and <a href="https://scheerpost.com/2022/09/01/report-russia-ukraine-tentatively-agreed-on-peace-deal-in-april/">pressures Zelensky to stop negotiating</a>.</p><p>June 2022 - Former Ukrainian President Poroshenko <a href="https://www.rt.com/russia/557307-poroshenko-comments-minsk-agreement/">admits</a> that the Minsk agreement was used as a distraction to buy time to build his military. Interesting leaked audio from Silvio Berlusconi <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/20/europe/italy-berlusconi-putin-friendship-leaked-audio-intl-hnk/index.html">reveals</a> he blames Ukraine for this war and their unwillingness to abide by the terms of the peace agreement they signed.</p>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-50174492494201699052021-06-28T21:21:00.001-04:002021-06-29T10:29:00.429-04:00Lab Leak?<p>Nathan Rich has some great videos explaining the Fort Detrick lab leak theory, see <a href="https://youtu.be/3J6zm6zgah0">here</a>, <a href="https://youtu.be/cdKI5qOF_a8">here</a>, and <a href="https://youtu.be/yVWyzTo5njY">here</a>. I want to capture some of the sources for my reference.</p><p>In June of 2019 the CDC audited Fort Detrick. They subsequently issued a <a href="https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/fredericknewspost.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/8f/88f15941-32e8-58bf-b81b-7feac7f3b435/5dd9c1ee8ba15.pdf.pdf">report</a> detailing their findings. The report indicates 2 breaches of toxins occurred.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgygzrNAQGmpvDhU3UR4Q6pU2bgp8hczLM4p1k4QX_3AkQ0GI2mvzFYMLc_UJkMr5OXHOqdvUux6e0U8Ve2hgab69lRKNuDnRNKjbeqFRfq_TJgkYw1k-do-BgtchzCQAuglTgCXi4XBZc/s739/Detrick1.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="255" data-original-width="739" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgygzrNAQGmpvDhU3UR4Q6pU2bgp8hczLM4p1k4QX_3AkQ0GI2mvzFYMLc_UJkMr5OXHOqdvUux6e0U8Ve2hgab69lRKNuDnRNKjbeqFRfq_TJgkYw1k-do-BgtchzCQAuglTgCXi4XBZc/w532-h183/Detrick1.PNG" width="532" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>The below excerpt indicates improper containment in ABSL rooms, the "A" designates it as room where animals are housed and studied. There was risk that contaminated air from this room could expose people without respiratory protection outside of the room.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizcOCX69Rt6yGDyNmPAxbthbAO8fEi6wgSymYMXAk7p0479ucI3R-H0Fo71N1O1izzHCT8eVtMxk4F5hg4LeVPbu2Od-SPVyiuQy-ky2oPk8S7yKi4W81bBR_bjejiKSxPKeWPT6Dg5Hs/s785/Detrick2.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="172" data-original-width="785" height="119" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizcOCX69Rt6yGDyNmPAxbthbAO8fEi6wgSymYMXAk7p0479ucI3R-H0Fo71N1O1izzHCT8eVtMxk4F5hg4LeVPbu2Od-SPVyiuQy-ky2oPk8S7yKi4W81bBR_bjejiKSxPKeWPT6Dg5Hs/w544-h119/Detrick2.PNG" width="544" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>This section discusses improper waste disposal coming from the animal test room. The room includes NHPs, which stands for Non Human Primates.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcG2Hw_jPABJ4w_cjtyUmesI9JTNMkTM75GKX25q6QawxuIAn9TFG8Ud2CMgCEv3HXEnrvsl5MwYezZL-0owhLlZwkrcKFgCOUCs4Gu9rh3zwkGJ3x52qaeXsDPnekKAmUPO8fX1FlFe0/s754/Detrick3.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="244" data-original-width="754" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcG2Hw_jPABJ4w_cjtyUmesI9JTNMkTM75GKX25q6QawxuIAn9TFG8Ud2CMgCEv3HXEnrvsl5MwYezZL-0owhLlZwkrcKFgCOUCs4Gu9rh3zwkGJ3x52qaeXsDPnekKAmUPO8fX1FlFe0/w513-h167/Detrick3.PNG" width="513" /></a></div><br /><div><p>On June 30, 2019, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/07/17/third-person-has-died-after-respiratory-illness-outbreak-greenspring-village-fairfax-officials-say/">a respiratory illness led to the death of 3 people and sickness of 63 people including staff</a> at a senior living center located about 60 miles from Ft Detrick. The cause could not be identified. Story from ABC News <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/respiratory-outbreak-investigated-retirement-community-54-residents-fall/story?id=64275865">here</a>.</p><p>July 2019, <a href="https://patch.com/virginia/burke/another-respiratory-outbreak-found-burke-retirement-community">a second assisted living facility</a> is reporting 25 cases of a mystery respiratory illness. This is about 54 miles from Fort Detrick.</p><p>On July 18, 2019 <a href="https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/08/08/the-cdc-shut-down-an-army-lab-thats-working-on-an-ebola-vaccine/">Fort Detrick is shut down</a>.</p><p>August 1, 2019 marks the start of <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1915313">a surprise outbreak of vaping related illness</a> with symptoms <a href="https://www.medpagetoday.com/pulmonology/smoking/90294">quite similar to covid</a>. It <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1915313">hits men harder</a>, as <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/men-more-susceptible-to-serious-covid-19-illnesses">does covid</a>.</p><p>September 2019, blood samples from Italians are drawn and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0300891620974755">subsequently test positive for Covid antibodies</a>. These are the earliest human samples that have tested positive for Covid.</p></div><div>October 18-27, 2019, a multi-sport competitive event called the World Military Games is held in Wuhan, China. Many US military personnel are reporting that they were <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/wuhan-military-games-china-athletes-covid-sick-gallagher">sick with Covid like symptoms</a>. A French athlete has been told by doctors that <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/olympic-athlete-fell-ill-competing-in-wuhan-last-october-50p02rggm">she likely had Covid</a>. She reports that many others seemed sick. They were not tested and <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8291755/Did-European-athletes-catch-coronavirus-competing-World-Military-Games-Wuhan-OCTOBER.html">many athletes have been directed not to speak to the media</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>November 2019, US intelligence <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-alerted-israel-nato-to-disease-outbreak-in-china-in-november-report/">warns Trump, NATO, and Israel</a> about the coronavirus outbreak occurring in China. This is weeks before anyone had presented themselves at a hospital in China for Covid.</div><div><br /></div><div>December 10, 2019, Wei Guixian, a shrimp vendor in Wuhan, <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/wuhan-shrimp-seller-identified-as-coronavirus-patient-zero/articleshow/74870327.cms?from=mdr">developed what she thought was a cold and went to a clinic for treatment</a>. The treatment was not effective and she returned to a hospital. She was informed that others had been to the hospital with similar symptoms. She is the first identifiable person infected in China as far as I know.</div><p>December 13, 2019 through January 17, 2020 blood samples are collected in the US which would later be tested for Covid antibodies. <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/12/01/940395651/coronavirus-was-in-u-s-weeks-earlier-than-previously-known-study-says">1.4% would test positive</a>. Extrapolating this % to the full US population suggests 4.7M people had Covid antibodies at this time.</p><p>January 13, 2020, 2 days before China had awareness that Covid was human to human transmissible, <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-design.html">the Moderna vaccine is already developed</a>.</p><p>Note: May update occasionally as new information comes to light.</p>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-37740983349570710532021-06-27T12:06:00.000-04:002021-06-27T12:06:23.854-04:00At least victims of US violence aren't Americans<p>Capitalism in the US produces a lot of corpses, just as British capitalism did before it. But I've literally encountered this argument myself and also seen it in debates. Defenders of US capitalism, with it's 800 military bases, funding of death squads that do such things as <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/an-actual-american-war-criminal-may-become-our-second-ranking-diplomat/">smash children to death against rocks</a>, torture programs around the world like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program">Phoenix Program</a> where people are raped using eels, at least we're only killing Vietnamese or Colombians or Syrians. It's not like Stalin and Mao who had it in for their own people for some reason.</p><p>It's a strange argument to my ears and I do wonder if some people just don't feel empathy in an ordinary way, but I want to address it in any case. For the moment I want to set Stalin and Mao aside, except to say that for me while I accept that there were major problems and millions dead this doesn't mean we should accept the full western characterization of the situation blindly. But why is it that US violence doesn't target Americans? Is this due to some sort of benevolence? Lenin has an excerpt from his work "Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism" that sheds light. In it he recounts a story from Cecil Rhodes, well known for the Rhodes Scholarship program. He was a vicious imperialist and mass murderer. He explained what prompted him to advance imperial adventures.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid06KYhXowjs__3vlFj40ndlhCQRb0Iddi1oYR33FQi8jBkJdIkfaIdxTq_bOH34y61lWNcTqkPnEfq28_3hDfwlDIkwzW3_vOODYiAjogYevIN5tdd6RXyEtslCGTWC6neDl0_wjFdrY/s1744/Cecil+Rhodes.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="822" data-original-width="1744" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid06KYhXowjs__3vlFj40ndlhCQRb0Iddi1oYR33FQi8jBkJdIkfaIdxTq_bOH34y61lWNcTqkPnEfq28_3hDfwlDIkwzW3_vOODYiAjogYevIN5tdd6RXyEtslCGTWC6neDl0_wjFdrY/w552-h260/Cecil+Rhodes.PNG" width="552" /></a></div><br /><p>It's true that US imperialism does not target US citizens. But this is not due to benevolence. This is because it is necessary to have stability at home and stave off civil war by placating the population. Imperialism allows the acquisition of new markets as well as cheap labor and resources. These can be used to provide an OK life for the home population and therefore the home population will not disrupt the system. The exploited countries will of course be chaos. We'll have to have death squads killing children and raping women. But chaos there is not really a threat to the system at home.</p><p>But this is only for capitalism in the imperial stage. The earlier stages of capitalism could be very violent to natives. The stage of primitive accumulation, which is the earliest stage, was characterized by extermination of Native Americans and slavery. That's what was needed to advance the profits at that time. Today the US is imperialist, but there are signs that this is waning.</p>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-11677019521455141392021-05-30T10:29:00.000-04:002021-05-30T10:29:46.494-04:00Debunking the Pending Anti-China Propaganda Push<p>The <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-senate-panel-to-consider-major-china-competition-bill-april-14-source-2021-04-08/">US Senate is advancing a bill</a> to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to try and stop the amazing progress of China, which is developing rapidly under socialism independently of US domination. We should expect a major propaganda push. I want to post some links here that can be used to evaluate the assertions that will be coming.</p><p>First it is important to understand that a common tactic of US regime change agents is to lie about human rights abuses for targets of regime change. Let's recall that:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Vietnam was falsely accused of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident">attacking US troops in the Gulf of Tonkin</a>, justifying escalation of the Vietnam war that killed millions of people</li><li>Iraqi soldiers were falsely accused of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony">killing babies in incubators in Iraq</a>. This testimony literally staged by a PR firm was key in getting support for war against Iraq passed in the Senate.</li><li>Saddam Hussein was falsely accused of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein%27s_alleged_shredder">throwing critics into wood shredders</a> to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.</li><li>Iraq was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group">falsely accused</a> of having a WMD program to justify the same war.</li><li>Qaddafi was accused of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_rape_allegations">systematically raping women</a> to justify the NATO bombing of Libya, which is now a failed state.</li><li>Assad was <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n24/seymour-m.-hersh/whose-sarin">falsely accused</a> of perpetrating a chemical weapons attack in Syria in 2013 to justify arming <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/14/world/meast/syria-eaten-heart/index.html">terrifying</a> Islamic <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/Rebel-brutality-in-Syria-posing-dilemma-in-West-4790877.php">extremists</a>.</li><li>The same scenario has played out for an alleged attack in 2018. This time <a href="https://thegrayzone.com/2021/04/24/challenged-on-syria-cover-up-opcw-chief-lies-and-us-uk-france-evade/">it is revealed</a> that the Office on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons altered their report under pressure from US officials on the investigative findings so as to implicate Assad. The initial report was not coming to this conclusion.</li><li>The Venezuelan government is <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/">falsely accused</a> of setting fire to an aid truck when in fact it was the US backed right wing opposition that set the fire. This is to justify the removal of the elected president, Nicholas Maduro, and install a right wing puppet, Juan Guaido.</li></ul><p></p><p>The tactic of using human rights abuse allegations against China was <a href="https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/05/02/worlds-most-tyrannical-regime-cant-stop-babbling-about-human-rights/">laid out in 2017</a> within Trump's State Department. We also know from <a href="https://ourhiddenhistory.org/ocr-docs/church-committee/church-committee-755-iv.pdf.txt">internal US planning documents</a> that our government will make use of psychological operations. "<span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Psychological operations were primarily media-related activities, including unattributed publications, forgeries, and subsidization of publications; political action involved exploitation of dispossessed persons and defectors, and support to political parties; paramilitary activities included support to guerrillas and sabotage; economic activities consisted of monetary operations." Accusations of abuse within China must be understood within this context.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">With that established let's consider what is happening in the Chinese autonomous region of Xinjiang. As <a href="https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-05/Fighting-terrorism-in-Xinjiang-MaNLLDtnfq/index.html">this CGTN documentary covers</a> there was massive terrorist violence in Xinjiang starting in 1990 stemming from separatists, particularly from the Uyghur Muslim minority living there. Uyghurs are a Turkic minority ethnic group in China. In 2002 the UN designated the major separatist party, the East Turkmenistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as <a href="https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list/summaries/entity/eastern-turkistan-islamic-movement">an Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group</a>. This was a move <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/pages/po3415.aspx">supported by the US</a>, and the US State Department would go on to <a href="https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/13403.htm">likewise designate them as terrorists</a>. Chinese Uyghur Muslims are <a href="https://newlinesinstitute.org/uyghurs/uighur-jihadists-in-syria/">currently fighting along side ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria</a> and have in the past been picked up in Afghanistan and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay">sent by the US to Guantanamo Bay</a>.</span></p><p>In 2011 Obama began pushing what came to be known as the <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-american-pivot-to-asia/">pivot to Asia</a>. I think this move is best understood within the context of <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_leninscritique.html">Lenin's understanding of the relationship between capitalism and imperialism</a>. Capitalism is a competitive ideology. One way to succeed is to make superior products more efficiently. The other is to suppress rivals so as to stave off competition. Keeping target countries poor and underdeveloped protects favored local industries and has the added bonus of weakening the bargaining position of rivals, which means the price of resources and labor can be reduced. This means higher profits for favored corporations.</p><p>There was some expectation with the opening up of China's economy that it would ultimately fall within this overall US hegemonic framework, as the Soviet Union did following some of their moves to open up in the 80s. By 2010 it was becoming apparent that this was not happening. Profits can be made in China, but profits are not in command, as they are in capitalist countries. Not only is China developing independently, but they are supporting the independent economic development of neighboring poor countries, particularly with the Belt and Road Initiative, which <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/map-explains-china-crackdown-on-uighur-muslims-in-xinjiang-2019-2">happens to have a major through fare in Xinjiang</a>. This is a threat to imperial capitalism. In <a href="https://youtu.be/Sa0WcEOn6zo?t=291">this amazing clip</a> from 2015 John Mearsheimer explains that China must be disrupted economically, even if they do everything we asked of them, such as completely adopt a US style governmental system. Even if this means driving them right back into the extreme poverty that they came out of. Even if they are 100% capitalist. Because the US cannot tolerate independent economic development. This is an explicit agreement with Lenin's theory that imperialism is just capitalism in it's highest stage.</p><p>Soon after Obama's pivot China felt compelled to initiate a more aggressive push to address terrorism in Xinjiang. The approach is rooted in Marxism as distinct from imperial capitalism. The idea is that terrorism is rooted in poor material conditions. China had developed the western coastal regions economically, somewhat to the neglect of the interior. When people are poor and feel disconnected from economic development they turn to terrorism for dignity and meaning. China began pouring resources into the region. And they also targeted suspected terrorists and compelled them to enter training camps. There they would learn Mandarin, which is recognized to be important vocationally. The effort was a smashing success if the goal is the actual eradication of terrorism. It brought terrorism to a complete halt and allowed the people to prosper. At this point there hasn't been a terrorist incident since 2017.</p><p>But what we're seeing from the US side is an effort to undermine this success. The National Endowment for Democracy is an organization that was formerly part of the CIA. They have <a href="https://www.ned.org/uyghur-human-rights-policy-act-builds-on-work-of-ned-grantees/">openly funded Uyghur separatist groups</a>. Former deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Wilkerson <a href="https://youtu.be/tVmliB0rVIo">explains</a> that the CIA is exploiting the situation in Xinjiang to disrupt China and it's Belt and Road Initiative. Former FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds <a href="https://twitter.com/spokespersonchn/status/1382365383378669570?lang=en">has claimed</a> that Uyghur separatists are being trained in Afghanistan, which shares a border with China, and returned to China to engage in terrorism.</p><p>At the same time a new allegation has gained traction in the last few years that rather than addressing terrorism in Xinjiang, China's vocational training centers amount to genocide. This view is heavily reliant on claims from Adrian Zenz, a <a href="https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/">NED funded evangelical extremist</a> who believes he is on a mission from God to destroy China. This is a person that does not speak Mandarin or Uyghur and has never been to China, let alone Xinjiang. <a href="https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-genocide-relied-on-fraudulent-far-right-researcher/">Flagrant abuse of data has been exposed on his part.</a> We also see many assertions based on reports from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a right wing think tank funded by a variety of defense companies.</p><p>Below are a few sources that suggest these accusations are false:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2019/11/11/world-bank-statement-on-review-of-project-in-xinjiang-china">Here is a World Bank report</a> that says they thoroughly investigated allegations of abuse of minorities in Xinjiang and found no evidence.</li><li><a href="https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/422970-pakistani-diplomat-narrates-visit-to-chinas-xinjiang">Here is a report</a> on a Pakistani diplomat that toured 3 centers where she had wide access. She found no evidence of forced labor or religious persecution.</li><li><a href="https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1158473.shtml">Here are 100 scholars and religious leaders from Xinjiang</a> claiming that Pompeo's assertions of 1M detained are absurd and it is untrue that their culture is being butchered. They claim to have seen the facilities and they say they are what the Chinese government says they are.</li><li><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/china-says-reached-broad-consensus-with-u-n-after-xinjiang-visit-idUSKCN1TH00T">China has invited the UN to visit the facilities</a> and the US vehemently objects and tries to stop it. This is the same thing the US does to discredit elections where it doesn't like the outcome. Venezuela wants international observers to come and see that their elections are free and fair, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-un-idUSKCN1GO2J0">the US sponsored opposition tries to stop people from going</a>.</li><li><a href="https://jamestown.org/program/the-22-vs-50-diplomatic-split-between-the-west-and-china-over-xinjiang-and-human-rights/">More countries support China's actions in Xinjiang than oppose</a>. No majority Muslim countries oppose.</li><li><a href="http://id.china-embassy.org/eng/jrzg/t1711859.htm">Here is an additional letter</a> submitted on behalf of 37 countries to the UN Human Rights Council praising China's actions in Xinjiang addressing terrorism and caring for the rights of the people.</li><li>Diplomats from 12 countries visited Xinjiang on a fact finding mission. <a href="http://id.china-embassy.org/eng/jrzg/t1629374.htm">Here is their letter describing what they found</a>.</li><li>Nike and H&M have indicated they will no longer purchase cotton from Xinjiang due to allegations in the media regarding forced labor. No direct evidence is offered. Meanwhile <a href="https://about.skechers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/SKECHERS-USA-STATEMENT-UYGHURS-March-2021.pdf">Sketchers has issued a statement</a> that they will continue to purchase Xinjiang cotton because their audits have provided no basis for the accusation, including a recent unannounced audit.</li></ul><div>Finally I want to include a link to <a href="https://twitter.com/asatarbair/status/1367632236007202819">a twitter thread</a> that covers a few additional reasons for doubting the claims of the US and its proxies on this issue.</div><div><br /></div><div>The abuse we see of Muslims in Palestine right now (also Christians in Palestine), the abuse of Muslims going on in India, in Yemen, this is stuff we can all see on video. If the west had real concerns for Muslims they'd address the proven abuses. Instead the focus is on China where we have no videos, no pictures, no refugees, minority population growth and income growth. Claims about human rights is simply a tool in the tool kit to advance US imperialism, whether the claims are true or not, and in this case in my judgment it is obvious that the claims are not true.</div><p></p>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-25394995612543473722021-05-02T11:37:00.004-04:002021-05-02T11:42:42.133-04:00Chomsky Is a Dead End<p>I'll have to always be grateful to Chomsky and his deconstruction of capitalism. But when it comes to the natural question "OK, what should we do about it?" Chomsky offers the wrong answer. It's something about forming unions, organizing the work place, from there workers councils and worker federations. No hierarchies. It sounds great to not have bossses, but it was hard to wrap my head around how this was really going to stop this freight train of capitalism, with all the weaponry of the US government. I just can't imagine a capitalist system would feel threatened by this.</p><p>There was an alternate model in places like the Soviet Union and China and these were perceived as a threat by the CIA and the US military. But those, according to Chomsky, are not REAL socialism. Those were horrible dungeons. Let's wait around for a more PURE socialism to emerge, with no coercion, no force, no hierarchies. Anarchism baby!! And if you look at our communities, we punch Nazis, we break windows, we have drugs, heavy metal, green hair, torn pants, ACAB, etc.</p><p>Is this message going to sound compelling to the bulk of the US population that we need to persuade? Are they going to be impressed with this model? Are they going to think it's reasonable that the Soviet Union really wasn't socialist and that real socialism is this idea that exists in Chomsky's head?</p><p>And what does this model have to show for it's accomplishments? That's the question I would be asked. Well there was free Spain for a few months, even though that was made up of a lot of different organizations, not just anarchists. There was some island in the North Atlantic that was anarchist. The Amish are kind of anarchist. This is seriously how I would respond.</p><p>Let's compare to that other style of socialism that Chomsky says is not REAL socialism. The Soviet Union was the poorest part of Europe in 1917, and then they got invaded by 15 different countries, including the US, which tried to kill socialism in its cradle. They beat back the invaders and then they industrialized faster than ever before, electrified the whole country, built the world's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_Hydroelectric_Station">largest hydro-electric dam</a>, became the leading producer of steel, of tractors, <a href="https://artir.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/compar1.png?w=640">higher caloric consumption than Americans</a>, and the food was more nutritious <a href="https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85M00363R000601440024-5.pdf">according to the CIA</a>. They <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union#Life_expectancy_and_infant_mortality">more than doubled life expectancy</a>. They did <a href="https://vimeo.com/128373915">most of the heavy lifting beating the Nazis</a>, and yet after being totally destroyed by that war somehow they managed to end homelessness, end poverty, invent space travel, and all this despite a harsh embargo and needing to spend like crazy on defense to counter hostile outsiders. They also supported successful revolutionary movements outside of their borders, some of which saw death on a genocidal scale after the SU fell, just like death descended on Russia and other former Soviet states in the 90s.</p><p>Today the world's fastest growing economy is in China. In the last 40 years they have ended extreme poverty within their country. That's 800M people. Capitalist apologists like Steven Pinker and Bill Gates like to pretend capitalism is making life better because worldwide poverty is falling. <a href="https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty">Excluding China the number of people in poverty in the world is rising</a> (though the rate is falling). In the midst of all of our technological advancements. Today it is China that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam">has the world's largest hydro-electric dam</a>. China managed covid better than any other country when you consider the difficult conditions in which they started. China does far and away the most to help other countries battling covid. The US hoards vaccines, <a href="https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/1383786846035922945?s=20">China exports them</a> (for which they are condemned in the US for their use of "soft power"). China would attempt to provide equipment for battling covid to other countries, the US would <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/04/04/827321294/german-french-officials-accuse-u-s-of-diverting-supplies">intercept them</a>. China is leading the world in renewable energy, infrastructure development.</p><p>To top it off the Soviet people were <a href="https://i.redd.it/vzcdtbxjmx661.png">happy</a> with their <a href="https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html">governments</a>. Chinese people are <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/22/the-countries-that-trust-their-government-most-and-least-infographic/?sh=57af021d777a">happy with their government</a>. If the people were happy, if development was the best and fastest the world has ever seen you can see why this would be perceived as a threat to the US capitalist system.</p><p>So why is Chomsky such a prominent leftist if he has this bad take? The reason is because the CIA has sponsored him. Not the he knew that, but the CIA had a program called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom">Congress for Cultural Freedom</a>. They knew that some people were going to figure out that capitalism sucked and socialism was the answer. How to sheep herd people like this into ineffective resistance to capitalism? Promote people that have the right criticisms of capitalism but the wrong solutions. And so they sponsored Chomsky. That's why we've heard of books like "Manufacturing Consent" but not "Inventing Reality" by Michael Parenti that apparently covers the same ground, some say does a better job, and he wrote this before Chomsky and Herman's book. Why have we not heard of Michael Parenti? Because he didn't pretend the Soviet Union wasn't socialist. He didn't like an idiot just fall for every lie told about the Soviet Union, lies that <a href="https://ourhiddenhistory.org/ocr-docs/church-committee/church-committee-755-iv.pdf.txt">our own government tells us they propagate</a>.</p><p>We have to be gracious to Chomsky though because in the 50s and 60s it was probably frightening to support the Soviet Union. But today it's really not so scary. We need to be better. And yet it seems Chomsky continues to side with the imperialists when it comes to actually existing socialist societies that are striving and usually succeeding at making the lives of their people better. In the case of Libya (maybe not socialist, but certainly anti-imperialist) while he did not think the west should intervene militarily he was generally supportive of the rebels and <a href="https://youtu.be/m_1A8er-bGU">wanted to see Qaddafi out</a>. This is the same pattern as the effect of the fall of the Soviet Union, which Chomsky called a "<a href="https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-on-anarchism-communism-and-revolutions/">small victory for socialism</a>." Libya boasted the highest life expectancy on the African continent, all kinds of programs that made life better for the people. People flocked to get in. Today they drown in the Mediterranean trying to get out, just as people fled the Soviet Union when it fell while also dying en masse, turning to the sex industry, drugs, alcohol, and crime. In Libya they are sold as slaves in open markets. I recall Chomsky expressing support for US troops in Syria. He's constantly attacking anti-imperialist states like Syria, Nicaragua, Russia, China, Venezuela. He's always been extremely hostile to supporters of BDS. Here's an interview where he gets <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4bMDx8IJU4">very testy with a BDS supporter</a>. At every turn where there's a real anti-imperialist movement he's crapping on it, it's not pure enough, it's not perfect enough. Nothing that could actually emerge in the real world that would resist capitalism is ever acceptable. Despite his deconstruction of capitalism, which is spot on, I'm sad to say I'm realizing Chomsky has been a great ally to capitalism by diverting anti-capitalist energy away from real solutions. Learn from his analysis, but look elsewhere for strategies to deal with the crisis we are in.</p>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-49707758000672752802021-01-03T16:22:00.000-05:002021-01-03T16:22:16.289-05:00Just Give People Money<p>I think it's helpful when thinking about economic matters to simplify and imagine a smaller group of people on a deserted island.</p><p>Let's imagine 100 families find themselves stranded on a large deserted island. A cruise ship has sunk and nothing could be salvaged. A tough situation, but they find that if the heads of household work on the necessities of life and a caretaker at home manages the kids they are able to provide just enough to meet everyone's needs.</p><p>The 10% of the smartest workers create some inventions that make work easier. Now only 60% of the workers are needed to address just the critical needs. The 10% that created the initial inventions get a privileged status. They get to be called the "owners" of the machines. Let's suppose also the 10% invent a system of money that is robust. They create a sufficient quantity of money and set its value so that the remainder of non-owners are paid a wage. The 60% address critical needs and the 30% start to focus more on luxuries. Making spices to make food yummy, creating recipes. Working on more inventions like stoves and washing machines or ways to make the work of the 60% more efficient. Everyone is happy because there is more than enough for all, plus some additional wants are being thrown in. The 10% get the extra awesome life though because they don't work any more.</p><p>Time passes and work becomes more efficient, especially with further inventions of the 30%. The owners realize they could lay off another 10 families and maintain output. If they lay people off then that's less they need to pay in wages, they can store more money. So they go for it. Now they find that their store of money is enlarging. And also the laid off people are not consuming as much. So there's a glut of stuff building up. Which means every now and then the workers can be idled. But when they are idled they consume less, which creates more idle time because less is produced when there is less demand. And you end up with a larger and larger amount of people with free time and no job, but with a lot of unmet needs and wants because they are no longer collecting a wage.</p><p>One thing that you will see is that the laid off people just try to think of other things that could be created and sold in the market. And they might achieve a successful product eventually and put themselves back to work. But it does take time. The stall is not good, the suffering they and their families endure is a grind, and as this process continues with more and more efficiency gains it does get progressively harder to do this as there is really only so much consumption the employed families and ownership families are going to want to engage in.</p><p>What's to stop the owners right after the layoff from just minting some more money and handing it to the unemployed people? The only concern is inflation. But inflation happens because there is more money in circulation than there are goods that people want to buy. The inventors have created a system that allows you to create a book with the press of a button (like Amazon does now, it used to take a whole army of people to create a book). The inventors have created 3D printers. With so much efficiency in creating things and so many goods available the truth is the price associated with things is coming down, so if you just hand the unemployed person newly minted coins such that the total money matches what was being spent earlier on wages, I don't think there should have to be inflation.</p><p>This is kind of the system we are in. We're just getting too good at creating things. So a glut of things builds up, and this causes people to lose their job. This causes suffering and intermittent contractions in the total amount of goods being produced.</p><p>It seems to me that the lack of money should not be an issue. Money is literally created from nothing. Money is just a tool that facilitates the activity (work and consumption) of people. Money can be used to take all those idle people and put them to work doing things that are beneficial, even if they are not being demanded in a market driven by profit. The money supply needs to increase commensurate with the increase in the number of goods being produced. It seems to me that if it doesn't then problems are created.</p><p>How does China manage to have such high sustained economic growth? They didn't even slow down in 2008. The Soviet Union had continuous unbroken economic growth. In the depths of the Great Depression in the US the Soviet Union was charging ahead and by 1936 they had gone from being the poorest country in Europe to a world super power. I think they were able to do this because they understand this issue I'm describing. As things get more efficient and a glut emerges they don't just have homeless people sitting around doing nothing. They say "Hey, you know that money you used to make growing crops? Now that we have machines we don't need that same work, but here's the same money as a salary, it's money we just created. Start helping to build roads, bridges, apartment buildings. Help build facilities where research can be done. We'll put even more people out of work due to the gain in efficiency and they can then join you building all these things, and we'll see everyone's life get better really fast." It's Ok to have more money flowing in the system anyway because more goods are being produced with less every year. Since there are more goods available for purchase more money in the system chasing those goods does not necessarily cause inflation. To avoid inflation we just have to ensure that economy continues to get more and more efficient, more and more productive, so that there is an expanding quantity of goods that the money is chasing. So why not use the creation of additional money as an opportunity to put idle hands to work creating things that the world needs and wants? Putting the idle hands to work is exactly how you ensure gains in productivity. The idle hands can work on the things that will make the economy more productive, instead of sitting around in misery and hunger, being homeless.</p><p>What this entails is setting aside the system that prioritizes profits and free markets. That creates giant swaths of able bodied people willing and able to work, but unable to make it happen, or at least stalled in their ability to make that happen. Plan the economy. There are plenty of things that need to get done. People need to get educated. They need good roads, nice cars, health care. We need renewable energy, or a carbon free source of energy (fusion). Put people to work doing things regardless of what the market and what Wall St profiteers think. The system we have is creating large numbers of people willing and able to do things that would make all of our lives better, but we're acting like the money supply can't be enlarged. It can be and it must be. More money is needed to reflect the additional things that humans are creating more efficiently every day. Just mint more money and put people to work. There is so much to do, we shouldn't let the fiction that money is limited prevent us from doing it.</p><p>That's the way it seems to me. What am I missing? Didn't our government just create something like $10T from nothing as stimulus? And what did they do with it? Most of it went to the rich. It has gone to back corporate debt and to fund military adventures, things that don't directly benefit the population. A bit went to the poor. So the money supply needs to be expanded and we have a choice about how we stimulate the economy as we do this. The choice in America is to give it to the rich, who won't spend much more, keep the idle hands idle and give just enough to the poor so they don't go crazy. This is a recipe for slow economic growth. It seems to me there is no good reason for it to be like this.</p><p>These thoughts were partly inspired by <a href="https://youtu.be/5baKgv7Zl5g">this discussion</a> of Modern Monetary Theory. Also <a href="https://youtu.be/c-AK1RdRzLc">this one</a>.</p>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-14854927436913080182021-01-01T14:21:00.001-05:002021-01-01T14:21:48.419-05:00What Is Socialism<p>Recently I've been watching commentary from Caleb Maupin that has me questioning some of my assumptions about what socialism means or what it should strive to be. I got interested in Maupin after discovering that he's saying some things that I've come to realize over the last couple of years. The first is that socialism works. Really well. It's absolutely bizarre that libertarians and others say things like "Socialism never works." It flies in the face of reality, almost like you couldn't be more wrong. <a href="https://youtu.be/6xI3-FAYBUI?t=171">Here's a commentary</a> from Maupin discussing some of this. If you are one of those people that says socialism never works, watch from the time stamp until about 32 minutes and see if you can avoid slipping into a state of cognitive dissonance. Because if you can you might just be cured of this lie.</p><p>In any case Maupin has also shared some texts from Marx and Engels that suggest they do not have the same vision for the path forward that those who call themselves socialists in America have, and I just want to share those texts here. Below is an excerpt from the <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm">Communist Manifesto</a>. The caps are mine for emphasis. It's a statement about how we transition from a capitalist world to the world that Marx envisions, one of complete abundance and freedom.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, BY DEGREE, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to CENTRALISE all instruments of production in the hands OF THE STATE, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE.</p></blockquote><p>Now, who in the world does this sound like today? Which nation has SOME power in the hands of the state, a centralized plan, and rapid increase in productive capacity? That's China. China, who pays massive homage to Marx all the time, who is lead by the Chinese Communist Party, who has 5 year economic plans and what it considers a dictatorship of the proletariat. And yet on the left so many act like China isn't socialist, or act like the Soviet Union wasn't socialist.</p><p>Let's go further, <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm">here's some discussion from Engels</a>. First I'll set a little context. He is talking about how in former times there were no classes of people because the productive forces were primitive. All people must work to provide the minimum requirements for survival. Imagine a hunter gatherer society barely scraping by. With time there are advances in efficiency so that it is not necessary to require all people to work in order to meet essential needs. This leads to the emergence of classes. Some must continue to perform the work functions and stay as working class and some enter the bourgeoisie class that manages the affairs of society, direction of labor, state, law, science. As the efficiency of production advances further we reach the critical point where class divisions are actually a hindrance to continued growth.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">This point is now reached. Their political and intellectual bankruptcy is scarcely any longer a secret to the bourgeoisie themselves. Their economic bankruptcy recurs regularly every 10 years. In every crisis, society is suffocated beneath the weight of its own productive forces and products, which it cannot use, and stands helpless, face-to-face with the absurd contradiction that the producers have nothing to consume, because consumers are wanting. The expansive force of the means of production bursts the bonds that the capitalist mode of production had imposed upon them. Their deliverance from these bonds is the one precondition for an UNBROKEN, CONSTANTLY-ACCELERATED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES, and therewith for a practically UNLIMITED INCREASE OF PRODUCTION ITSELF. Nor is this all. The socialized appropriation of the means of production does away, not only with the present artificial restrictions upon production, but also with the positive waste and devastation of productive forces and products that are at the present time the inevitable concomitants of production, and that reach their height in the crises. Further, it sets free for the community at large a mass of means of production and of products, by doing away with the senseless extravagance of the ruling classes of today, and their political representatives. The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, AND BECOMING DAY-BY-DAY MORE FULL, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties — this possibility is now, for the first time, here, but it is here.</p></blockquote><p>So we get this contradiction in capitalism of what might be called the glut. The absurd state where there is no consumption because there is too much stuff. Society is suffering under the weight of it's own productive forces. Like during the housing crash. People lose jobs because there are too many homes. And for this reason they can't afford a home. It would be like if I lost my job because there are too many cars produced. We have such an abundance of cars that I lose my job, which is in automotive design. Now I can't buy a car because there are too many cars. It's an insane contradiction, and when you burst the bonds of a system for profit that creates conditions where people can't buy cars because there are too many cars, now you can REALLY accelerate the productive forces. Why should we let the need for a profit hold us back from making more and more things that could be beneficial to humanity? Breaking these bonds creates a constant acceleration of productive forces, leading to a life that materially is more full each day, ushers in that final stage of human development, a state of complete freedom for all, where now you only work because you feel like it, but the productive forces are so efficient you don't even need to work at all if you don't want to.</p><p>For Marx the goal is to increase the productive capacity of humanity so much that ultimately you exit socialism and enter communism (I'm using modern terminology here, not necessarily Marx's terminology, but this is the idea he is describing), which is a stage of maximum freedom. Do whatever you want, all your needs and wants are provided, you can work if you want, or not, and in the end there is no need for a state or for money even because there is no reason for fighting since everyone has everything they would need and more. China's goal is to increase the productive capacity of humanity so much, including neighboring countries, that conflict between them becomes less likely, and ultimately we reach a stage of hyper-abundance where class status and coercion are no longer a thing. Socialism is that transitional stage from capitalism/feudalism to communism where you might have some profits, you might have some billionaires, you will have some inequality for a period, but then ultimately that goes away and everyone has everything they want.</p><p>But as I say, many on the left don't see it that way, especially the left in the US. They talk shit about places like China or the Soviet Union. And this annoys the hell out of leftists in other countries. <a href="https://youtu.be/YznH91kDIG0?t=268">Here's a great commentary</a> from a Vietnamese woman. You know what Americans? You haven't achieved shit. We can't even get a floor vote on Medicare for All, and even if we did and won Biden would veto it. We can't even bring health care to our country in the middle of a pandemic. We are living in a country that is rampaging to maintain imperialism throughout the world. We can't even contain Covid. Where China is bringing critical medical equipment to poor parts of the world we are bombing and starving them. Where China sends it's military out to plant trees to address the climate crisis and has <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3046064/in-chinas-great-green-wall-66-billion-trees-are-sucking-up-carbon-emissions">planted tens of billions</a>, the US is tearing up climate agreements. China is leading the world in <a href="https://youtu.be/Dj_-ISVoto4">solar</a>, <a href="https://youtu.be/Kso4Bj366vM">wind</a>, and <a href="https://youtu.be/HvAObk6ocgY">hydraulic</a> energy development. China is working on <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a34875771/china-turns-on-artificial-sun-nuclear-fusion-reactor/">carbon free fusion energy</a>. China has <a href="https://youtu.be/nuaJGPZCBYU">just completed</a> the most dramatic poverty reduction campaign in world history.</p><p>I've come to believe I have been misled by American leftists to think that socialism is about living in a shack, wearing rags, walking everywhere, maybe riding a bike. Historically it appears it has more been about hyper-abundance, the exact opposite of what so many of the American left preach. In fact it is capitalism that is holding back the advancements in economic growth, it is socialism that will set them free and cause the rapid growth, like we saw in the Soviet Union, like we see in China today. <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm">Here's</a> how Lenin put it.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">This expropriation will make it possible for the productive forces to develop to a tremendous extent. And when we see how incredibly capitalism is already retarding this development, when we see how much progress could be achieved on the basis of the level of technique already attained, we are entitled to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labor, of doing away with the antithesis between mental and physical labor, of transforming labor into "life's prime want"--we do not and cannot know.</p></blockquote><p>This is the historical understanding of the transitional period after capitalism but preceding the period of the stateless, moneyless, classless society that Marx and Engels envision. It's not running around in the woods in a loin cloth. It's more like space ships and robots. This vision of socialism is what drives places like China, Vietnam, Libya (before Qaddafi was murdered), Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela. These are poor countries that have had stunning success making the lives of their people better, and they are driving to make them better still. This is a more hopeful and optimistic view of the world that I think western leftists need to consider. The fact that we have achieved so little for such a long period of time in comparison should give us pause.</p>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-2406841590915405302020-03-31T09:00:00.000-04:002020-03-31T09:00:33.746-04:00What I've Learned from COVID and Our ElectionSome truths that I believe have been exposed over the past few months:<br />
<br />
<b>1-We do not have democracy in the US.</b><br />
<br />
We have a system that is more like what exists in Iran. The Ayatollah selects candidates that are acceptable to him that have slight differences. The people are then permitted to make a selection among them.<br />
<br />
Bernie Sanders was not acceptable to the Ayatollah. The appearance of democracy is there to convince people they believe they can choose him. But Shadow Incorporated is tallying the votes in Iowa and you never really get to be sure what happened. Bernie may have gotten more votes, but Pete won. The establishment ultimately will converge on a narrative that prevents a Sanders victory (he can't win, Biden can) and that will have a big impact.<br />
<br />
If Bernie had been able to overcome this and win more delegates this wasn't going to matter. The establishment <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/democratic-superdelegates.html">was clear</a> that they would have <a href="https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1233083238337384449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1233083238337384449&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2F2020%2F02%2F27%2Fpublic-doesnt-really-decide-msnbc-guest-under-fire-saying-voters-wont-choose-dem">disregarded</a> the will of the voters.<br />
<br />
The big assist is the establishment media. Imagine if Bernie had spent a whole month falsely claiming he had been arrested with Nelson Mandela? Imagine if there was a credible accusation of rape against him? What if Bernie was <a href="https://youtu.be/gXvwumYE7_s">as confused</a> as Biden? What if Bernie was on video awkwardly sniffing the hair of little girls and women? They attack Bernie because anonymous twitter fans are mean. We're supposed to just trust Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow when they say Bernie's followers are much worse. It won't matter that <a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/">after the fact this will be disproven</a>. You can try to resist this. It can be overcome in theory. In practice though all the money you donate, the canvassing you do, the time you spend on the phone calling supporters, I'm coming to the point where I feel it is wasted. We must fight with one hand tied behind our back. I don't see that we can win.<br />
<br />
<b>2-Even I'm surprised at how inept the US response is.</b><br />
<br />
We're the richest most powerful country in the world. We were given <a href="http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/fyrth/t1739548.htm">plenty</a> of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pneumonia/chinese-officials-investigate-cause-of-pneumonia-outbreak-in-wuhan-idUSKBN1YZ0GP">advanced warning</a> about this epidemic. Frankly China's response was astonishingly swift (see <a href="https://youtu.be/kO5EXjFKE7U">this discussion</a> of their overall timeline.) The virus was spreading there for 2 months before they even knew it was human to human transmissible (January 15).<br />
<br />
And yet China with a GDP/capita about 1/3 of ours was able to get in front of the epidemic and in about 2 months was able to bring their economy back online. With their extremely dense population centers and massive public transportation. In the middle of the biggest travel period of the year, in a time of year that is cold with higher transmittance rates for airborne illnesses.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLyFmk1GFEH8HPxIfXC8HyayAYSo8QfAe6Y520-kD2pOL33DZH-iPpTPSahNGaHA9rVlmd0k9yskEadpctrnJBq2yLPL0GyONm90CoIrgABaFIJNDP3aVgxWR_g1Akxb1MuB_GRisjVhk/s1600/Corona.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="871" data-original-width="1314" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLyFmk1GFEH8HPxIfXC8HyayAYSo8QfAe6Y520-kD2pOL33DZH-iPpTPSahNGaHA9rVlmd0k9yskEadpctrnJBq2yLPL0GyONm90CoIrgABaFIJNDP3aVgxWR_g1Akxb1MuB_GRisjVhk/s320/Corona.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Frankly I'm embarrassed. But smart people <a href="https://fxb.harvard.edu/2020/03/02/op-ed-the-coronavirus-could-hit-the-u-s-harder-than-other-wealthy-countries/">saw it coming</a>. They knew we're going to have people that just won't go to the doctor for fear of the bills. Like <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2020/03/25/Woman-who-died-of-COVID-19-refused-to-go-to-hospital-worried-about-bills/stories/202003250139">this</a>. We have a garbage system, and if this doesn't get people to ask some questions and demand some change I'm not sure what will.<br />
<br />
<b>3-Establishment Democrats do not care about anything but their own power.</b><br />
<br />
What's great about Trump is <a href="https://youtu.be/F69DQupMiZM">like Homer Simpson</a> he says out loud what he a smart person would keep to himself. We know he's narcissistic and he's not good at hiding it. For instance I watched <a href="https://youtu.be/fqjrlKfW93I?t=877">this interview</a> with Hannity. He's concerned about letting the Covid patients that had been out of country into our country because it will make our numbers look bad. A smarter politician would think that but keep it to himself. You're supposed to appear to be more concerned about people's safety then any potential negative perception that comes from a meaningless scorecard, the number of people in America with corona virus. But it's kind of nice that he tells us what he's thinking. The truth is laid bare.<br />
<br />
But it's sad to say Democrats think similarly. <a href="https://fair.org/home/media-silent-as-poll-workers-contract-covid-19-at-primaries-that-dnc-biden-campaign-claimed-were-safe/">This amazing report</a> details how Democrats pushed for elections in the middle of this pandemic knowing that it would kill. They did it because Biden is currently up in the polls and they want to close out the primary to ensure Sanders is blocked. They go so far as threatening states with a reduced allotment of delegates if they delay their primary out of concern for the health of their citizens.<br />
<br />
What about women's rights? Democrats were very concerned about the rape allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. What about Joe Biden? Nah. It's <a href="https://reason.com/2020/03/30/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-media/">not even worth talking about</a>. In fact Biden surrogates are going back in time and <a href="https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1244672687408021507">deleting their past Kavanaugh tweets</a>. They have never cared about women's rights, they have never cared about gay rights, they don't care about environmental matters. They adopt positions that are useful for obtaining votes and will abandon them as needed in service to power.<br />
<br />
They are not different from Trump, they are just better at hiding it. Malcolm X nailed this many years ago, I think he captures it perfectly.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNLkSF8ky-YltHVbOKdX8m3jfq4jGdUQWSEz2u5rg3PAhF8TtBYsjX9knWKzL1bCuSBNXl7cFvQlN075qwnXeMwDz0lv2nPyUFxVYNaPLR_bawbkXpxKVFiq8mJ05aKiHIsaW0OqMsFWA/s1600/X.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNLkSF8ky-YltHVbOKdX8m3jfq4jGdUQWSEz2u5rg3PAhF8TtBYsjX9knWKzL1bCuSBNXl7cFvQlN075qwnXeMwDz0lv2nPyUFxVYNaPLR_bawbkXpxKVFiq8mJ05aKiHIsaW0OqMsFWA/s320/X.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>4-Capitalism is savage.</b><br />
<br />
In the city of Las Vegas, currently filled with empty hotel rooms, the homeless <a href="https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1244680108868280321?s=19&fbclid=IwAR2u2biqtEK8k1m_QoC0SHDZu53RCKaCtANtbfhUos7CT9NfMqyesONaBck">sleep in the parking lot</a>. An empty hospital <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/30/seize-it-progressives-urge-philadelphia-city-govt-take-hahnemann-hospital-after">sits unused</a> because the owner and city can't come to terms. The maker of an $11K ventilator <a href="https://www.techtimes.com/articles/248121/20200317/maker-ventilator-valves-threatens-sue-volunteers-using-3d-printed-coronavirus.htm">threatens to sue</a> because volunteers spent $1 on 3D printing materials to create a valve that saved lives. Reports are that Trump is trying to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/germany-tries-stop-trump-luring-away-firm-working-coronavirus-vaccine-n1159426">gain exclusive access to a corona virus vaccine</a> being developed in Germany. They assure us it would be "<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-pelosi-trump-response/?fbclid=IwAR2FW0N_rMIlhmx428MgbpbdgQQo2y3FzIKLc2NSZi_jV0oR7Y1fbKvOVpk">affordable</a>."<br />
<br />
This type of capitalism is being forced on others. Iran's health service has been devastated by sanctions and they are struggling with the corona virus. But the US has <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/19/headlines/trump_admin_tightens_sanctions_that_have_devastated_irans_public_health_system">tightened sanctions</a> in the midst of this. Sanctions in Venezuela are very deadly and dangerous during this pandemic. Recent action by the US is to put out a <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/indicts-venezuela-maduro-narcoterrorism-charges-200326145359824.html">mafia style indictment</a>, offering to pay people up to $15M to provide information that can help lead to his arrest. <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/13/coronavirus-pandemic-sweeps-globe-trump-authorizes-new-bombing-campaign-middle-east">Bombing runs</a> are ordered on Iraq.<br />
<br />
In contrast China is sending plane loads of medical help to nations around the world. In the US media China sending help is <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/31/china-isnt-helping-italy-its-waging-information-warfare/">proof</a> that <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/china-virus-pr-offensive-sends-masks-experts-abroad-69723923">they</a> are <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-boris-johnsons-government-reportedly-furious-with-china-2020-3">evil</a>. Cuba is sending doctors and even <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/cruise-transatlantic-coronavirus-gbr-intl/index.html">taking in foreign sick people</a>. No apparent concern for how this will make them look statistically.<br />
<br />
I understand how the owner of a building needs to make money, that hotels have constraints. I'm not viewing this as proving that Americans are evil people. We have a system that leads to action though that produces an evil outcome. China has a system that is producing a positive outcome, whatever motives people want to attribute to them. We have to be willing to think about that.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-52092791373864546782020-03-07T16:47:00.000-05:002020-03-07T16:47:58.735-05:00I Have No Patience For These SnowflakesColor me surprised, and yet not surprised, at this absurd focus on "mean" Bernie Bro tweets and comments. This is a non-story. The corporate media has a difficult time going after Sanders on policy because his policy positions are very popular. And he's been consistent. He wasn't against the war and supporting gay rights when it was popular only. He did it when it was hard. He hasn't been fighting to protect social security and the environment only recently when it was more politically popular. He did it when it wasn't easy, when triangulators like Biden and Clinton wanted to be thought of as moderates and friends to Republicans, and they wanted the adulation of the corporate media.<br />
<br />
So they focus on the fact that some people online are mean. This is not news. Everyone knows what the comment section of Youtube looks like. Everyone knows how toxic it can be. It's not for everyone. If you don't want to be subject to that I understand. But stay out of the public discourse on politics. Don't criticize Trump. There are people that like him that will call you names, attack you. That's life. If you want to get in the ring and throw punches expect punches to come back. Some will be below the belt.<br />
<br />
It is unbelievable to me how much time Warren and Maddow spend on this topic in <a href="https://youtu.be/gmiaNwnSw68">her interview</a> after ending her campaign. Of course publishing people's home addresses and phone numbers is terrible. But this kind of thing is going to happen to people on Bernie's side, to people on Warren's side. I look at it a lot like late hits you see in the UFC. <a href="https://youtu.be/I6IAz0GOCh4">What Jorge Masvidal did to Ben Askren was horrible</a>. But it's going to happen. If you don't like it don't get involved in the fight business (I wouldn't.)<br />
<br />
What is another level of absurdity are these people who refuse to vote for Sanders because of the mean tweeting Bernie Bros. <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/07/watch-biden-backer-lindy-li-criticized-saying-she-will-absolutely-not-vote-sandershttps://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/07/watch-biden-backer-lindy-li-criticized-saying-she-will-absolutely-not-vote-sanders">Here's a Biden surrogate</a> who says she will not vote for Sanders over Trump if he's the nominee. She is a super delegate. She had a "horrible" experience in her mind. She tweeted an edited video of Bernie saying nice things about the subway system in the Soviet Union, how the metro stations are beautiful (which is <a href="https://www.rbth.com/arts/328682-moscow-metro-most-beautiful-stations">absolutely true</a>). His criticisms were taken out, so it makes him appear to be an apologist for Soviet communism. Glenn Greenwald offered a modest tweet in rebuttal. This led to Sanders supporters attacking her. They called her a racist and a bitch. Oooohhh. It was so bad she felt she needed to resign her position as treasurer of the Pennsylvania Young Democrats. Vanity Fair explains how much of a victim she is with <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/inside-bernie-biden-twitter-troll-war-lyndi-li">this article</a>. The subtitle indicates that she "didn't survive with her job." She resigned, her job was not taken from her, and it was an unpaid volunteer position.<br />
<br />
Again, I'm not condoning what was said to her, it is wrong. But we do have free speech in the US. Bernie cannot prevent this. A lot of Bernie supporters are angry people I suppose. Many are probably outsiders. A lot of us think Bernie gets unfair treatment in the media and this is aggravating. Some overreact.<br />
<br />
But people are dying from lack of health care. The planet is on track to not be habitable for humans for large areas of the globe. There are so many issues that are far more important than the mean tweets coming from Bernie Bros. The corporate media is making this an issue because it's hard to get after Bernie on policy.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-92121096179306878262020-03-01T13:43:00.003-05:002020-03-01T17:49:37.782-05:00Election Thoughts-Something is WrongI'm pleasantly surprised by the success of Sanders once again in this election cycle. Will he win the democratic nomination? It certainly looks like it. People are talking a lot about how the establishment could steal it from him. It's possible, but my instinct tells me they won't go to that far. He'll win the nomination.<br />
<br />
Even more surprised than me is the establishment. <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1230295964025606146">Here's a great video</a> watching through time as MSNBC variously downplays him, acts like he has no chance, only to come to the horrifying realization that he's becoming the front runner. Today is the day after the SC primary and the media is delving back into fantasy land thinking Biden can stop him. <a href="https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1233926486672969728">This guy</a>. I don't see it.<br />
<br />
A lot of the establishment thinks Bernie won't be able to beat Trump. No way the population will go that far, they say. As if universal health care is so bizarre, or raising the minimum wage. What is true though is that Bernie is a departure from the way we currently do things. He's different. He's change.<br />
<br />
But isn't this obviously what the electorate wants and has wanted for quite some time? The ruling class I think understood this in 2008 when they offered up Obama. Obama wasn't really much of a change. But he felt like change. A black president is at least superficial change. But I think people were a bit disillusioned with Obama. He wasn't real change. Hillary I think once again demonstrated that the ruling class knew that change is needed. They tried the superficial "first woman president" method that got Obama elected. But it was against Trump. Whatever you think of Trump he's real change. Real change beat superficial change.<br />
<br />
And now we're 3 years into Trump and while there has been change I don't think it's the kind of change people were looking for. I think <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_this_could_be_why_you_re_depressed_or_anxious?language=en">this Ted talk</a> is insightful in terms of recognizing that we have systemic issues that cause depression and anxiety. Our problems are not the result of illegal immigrants, Muslims, minorities. This is Trump at least offering the population some kind of answer for their problems. He's attacked these groups, but it hasn't made life better for ordinary people. I think at a deep level people understand that something needs to change still.<br />
<br />
And that is why I think all the data we have, imperfect as it is, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/opinion/bernie-sanders-polls.html">is telling us that Bernie would be among the best positioned to beat Trump</a>. Further I think if he does win and is able to successfully implement his agenda his popularity will skyrocket. Because not only would this mean change, it is the kind of change that I think will help Americans start addressing their serious problems.<br />
<br />
For me the most important thing is it means the planet would have a chance. I'm not sure if we are too late, but I think we are not. If we organize and focus we can prevent catastrophic damage. Sanders means we'd have a president that would at least try. That's real change. We desperately need it.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-32119739516833811972019-12-07T10:20:00.000-05:002019-12-07T10:20:10.196-05:00100 Million Dead From SocialismSocialists need a better answer when critics raise this issue. "But that wasn't REAL socialism" or "I only mean Denmark." There is some validity to these replies but for a lot of people I think this isn't good enough. We need to address it head on. That's what I intend to do here.<br />
<br />
Any system will produce avoidable death. The question is whether the socialist system produced more death than the capitalist system over a comparably sized population and time period. I would submit that it hasn't come close.<br />
<br />
If we accept the 100 million figure from 1917 to 1990 that is about 14 million dead every decade. If that makes socialism a failure what do we do with <a href="https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/britain-robbed-india-of-45-trillion-thence-1-8-billion-indians-died-from-deprivation">1.8 billion dead in India alone</a> under British capitalist domination from 1765 to 1938. That's over 100M every decade. For 17 decades.<br />
<br />
And it wasn't accidental death that the British worked to avoid and mitigate, as in China during the Great Famine. The Great Famine is regarded as a failure of planning and management, not a deliberate effort to starve Chinese peasants. The British actively starved people. <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-truth-our-empire-killed-millions-404631.html">This article</a> talks about how the British conducted experiments to see how few calories the people could survive on, then implemented that knowledge throughout the country. They report of human skeletons walking around doing the work required by the British. Churchill knowingly diverted food away from Indians he knew were starving, and said it was <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.htmlhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html">their fault for breeding like rabbits</a>.<br />
<br />
China and India achieved independence at about the same time, with India pursuing a more soft capitalist approach with a fair amount of government intervention in the economy and China pursuing a more aggressively socialist agenda. China did suffer the Great Famine, but also had some success in terms of rural education, health, and food programs. <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/capitalism-socialism-khmer-rouge-cambodia-china-famine-friedersdorf">The result</a> was 39 million excess deaths per decade in India as compared to China. This again exceeds all deaths attributed to socialism from all countries.<br />
<br />
We're talking about one country and the death toll dwarfs that of all of socialism. We haven't touched on Vietnam, Iraq, Guatemala, Indonesia, East Timor, Kenya, the Congo, Korea, Iran. If this is our metric capitalism is an incredible failure.<br />
<br />Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-56290206000282798782019-11-24T10:07:00.001-05:002019-11-24T10:09:21.416-05:00Faux Concern for Venezuelans<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i.imgur.com/TG0KuDK.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="640" height="320" src="https://i.imgur.com/TG0KuDK.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
When a country elects a government that US policy makers don't prefer the response often involves things like sanctions and embargoes. Our government collectively punishes people for voting the wrong way in a free election.<br />
<br />
The goal is to cause collective suffering. This in turn can lead to a change in government if the people either blame the government for the suffering or simply give up and elect the government preferred by US investors to stop the pain.<br />
<br />
Sanctions can approach genocidal levels. In fact in Iraq two consecutive directors of the UN Oil for Food Program resigned because they regarded it as genocidal. Madeline Albright was confronted with the magnitude of the collective suffering. At the time of this question it was thought to be 500 thousand children starved. She said <a href="https://youtu.be/FbIX1CP9qr4">it was worth it</a>.<br />
<br />
In Venezuela it's been <a href="https://mronline.org/2019/02/19/financial-blockade-chronology-of-a-strategy-to-destroy-venezuela/">extremely harsh</a>. Blocking insulin and malaria medication? Now we're implementing <a href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14659">additional measures</a> to prevent their efforts to feed their own poor? This is atrocious. Jeffrey Sachs estimates 40K dead Venezuelans already.<br />
<br />
US propagandists want people to blame the Maduro government for this suffering. But nobody would fall for that, right? I mean, maybe you might fall for that the first time it's tried, maybe the second. Or third. But again and again and again? Humans can't be that naive. Can they?<br />
<br />
Of course they can. <a href="https://twitter.com/HispanicPundit/status/1198312100751433728">Here's my friend HP</a>. He's so upset to see suffering Venezuelans and ANGRY that people don't finally come to realize how terrible socialism is. Even though Venezuela is not a socialist country. I'm baffled. And so is Jeffrey Sachs as he reveals in <a href="https://youtu.be/clwwjG3sqbU">this interview</a>. Remember, the sanctions are designed to produce this outcome. We see the outcome. We don't recognize sanctions as the cause?<br />
<br />
Meanwhile in Bolivia the president and candidate who won the most votes is pressured to leave the country. His VP is arrested. A right wing politician who's party won very few votes has assumed the presidency and has signed a measure permitting the military to put down protesters by lethal force. Which they are now doing. And in Venezuela Juan Guaido, who recently attempted an overthrow of the elected Maduro government with the support of the US, the country imposing collective suffering on Venezuelans, is still campaigning for insurrection across Venezuela. Guess which country is described as a dictatorship?Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-58299784811543152302019-09-29T18:56:00.000-04:002019-09-29T18:56:00.554-04:00Another Global Warming Debate with Bob DutkoI'm really impressed with Greta Thunberg's activism. Her <a href="https://youtu.be/bW3IQ-ke43w">speech</a> at the UN Climate Summit was amazing. Conservatives are largely attacking her so I thought I'd listen to Bob Dutko the following day to see what he had to say.<br />
<br />
To Bob's credit he was not hostile to her. In fact he says it is obvious she believes what she is saying. But he would like to let her know that she shouldn't be worried. In fact climate scientists supposedly haven't gotten ANY of their predictions right. They have gotten ZERO correct according to Bob. Really.<br />
<br />
These are the claims the climate scientists have gotten wrong according to Bob.<br />
<br />
1-20 years ago they were telling us that **by this time** sea levels are going to rise so much from melting icebergs that millions will die, entire countries will be underwater, coastlines will be gone, famine will be running rampant, so many disastrous hurricanes and tornadoes will lead to calamity. We're going to be burning up and children won't know what snow is any more. The polar bears will be drowning.<br />
<br />
2-30 years ago it was global cooling. An ice age age **by this time**. Millions of people are going to be dying from freezing to death and lack of food.<br />
<br />
3-Also AOC says the earth will be uninhabitable 12 years from now.<br />
<br />
Following this litany Bob made the following statement:<br />
<br />
"How many times do these environmentalists have to make predictions and not get any of them right, zero of their predictions right, before we start realizing I'm not going to listen to them when they keep on making these kinds of predictions."<br />
<br />
Bob said that in time Greta would see that the coastlines are still coastlines, the temperature of the earth is still the same, the ice is still there in the arctic, no coastline houses are underwater, the state of Florida isn't underwater.<br />
<br />
Also apparently a letter was delivered to the leaders of the UN summit that was supposedly a listing of 500 scientists that completely dissent from the mainstream view and they want to have a debate about it. Why won't they engage in this debate? They'll say it's because they don't want to give the other side credibility, but if the science was clear this debate should be welcomed. But they won't because their argument is so weak. This is Bob's conclusion.<br />
<br />
Well I thought I should give Bob a call on this. But it was tough for me to figure out what to say, and I would suggest to Bob that this is another reason why this debate is not welcomed by climate scientists (though I agree they do not want to give the denial side credibility.) What Bob engaged in with this discussion is what is sometimes called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop">Gish Gallop</a>. Overwhelm your opponent with as many arguments as possible, each of which require detailed research. Hurricanes, tornadoes, polar bears, ice age, sea levels, global cooling. I don't even know where Bob is getting his specific information. How can I discuss without first getting the sources and researching them? What would a climate scientist do on the stage for 90 minutes? Would anybody expect this to resolve the question? It takes tons of time, tons of study. In reality it takes a research paper, which is what scientists have been going back and forth doing for the past 30 years. That's why the debate is over.<br />
<br />
This is what I was thinking about in placing my call. I thought maybe I should just call in, ask for a source on one issue and tell him I'll call back next week. But I decided instead to try to talk about the ice age because he had <a href="http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2012/06/bob-dutko-and-i-talk-global-warming.html">brought that up the last time</a> we talked and he had provided the source. At least I can speak to that intelligently. But I want to try to avoid having him jump from here to there on a different topic.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately I was unable to do that. He seemed to view my effort to bring up his source on the ice age as me just trying to nail him to the wall for one error he made 7 years ago, like this is just me trying to get in a zinger I guess. And he was off to the races talking about polar bears, hurricanes, supposedly I need to go find a photo of a house from 50 years ago on the coast and compare it to today. We're off in 14 different directions. This is what a verbal debate would look like and I can see why no climate scientist would be interested.<br />
<br />
Despite that I think the call was OK. I at least got some good info out there. But I was unprepared to really deal with polar bears and hypothetical coastline photos. To Bob's credit though he did let me get most of my points out.<br />
<br />
And perhaps I will follow this with reaction to his various arguments. If I can track down his sources.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/b7JrNlrp7EE/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b7JrNlrp7EE?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-16443483736654430662018-11-23T14:32:00.000-05:002018-11-23T14:53:16.103-05:00Ben Shapiro: 7 Myths of Democratic Socialism Debunked....DebunkedMy friend Chad on Facebook has exposed me to some material from Ben Shapiro. I watched a recommended video. Having put in a bit of time replying I thought I'd go ahead and just post my effort here for future reference.<br />
<br />
From what I can gather Shapiro is highly regarded as an intellectual amongst conservatives. I watched some of the "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS so and so" videos since I became aware of him. I wasn't very impressed. I think <a href="https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher">this critique</a> captures my sentiments pretty well. I feel he just creates caricatures and destroys them, often bullies students or other non-professional speakers rather than engaging in what I feel would be an honest and inquiring interaction.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/nqgY_gNd8H4">Here</a> is the video I'm responding to. Shapiro debunks 7 myths surrounding Democratic Socialism.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Myth 1-Democratic socialism is different from regular socialism. The only difference is we vote for it.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shapiro response-Socialism is about from each according to his ability, to each according to his need as ensured by the total nationalization of industry and resources. This is different from a capitalist country that has some socialist policies along with some wealth redistribution or nationalized health care.</blockquote>
Shapiro here is talking about the positions being advocated by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Presumably their positions define the meaning of the phrase "democratic socialism." If their positions are the basis for the meaning of Democratic Socialism don't we need to talk about what their positions are?<br />
<br />
In fact we don't get that from Shapiro. Instead he starts by defining socialism for us. It is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." He then tells us that Bernie and AOC say democratic socialism is different from socialism. But that's "not accurate" because all they are saying is that it's socialism but we get to vote for it. What??<br />
<br />
There is so much confusion here. First of all "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't socialism. It has more to do with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism">communism</a>. Compare that to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism">what socialism actually is</a>. In summary socialism is about social control of the means of production. It says the fruits of the labor of workers belong to the workers, as opposed to a person sitting in a mansion collecting checks because he owns all the stock. Right now Alice Walton may sleep all day in her mansion and she will still collect the fruit of the labor of others. Stock boys at Walmart, cashiers, cleaners, cart collectors, even sweat shop laborers sewing shirts and underwear together, really everyone up and down the supply chain. There are people who do the work, much of it back breaking. And then there are capitalists. People who own the property rights. These are the people that get the fruit of the labor but don't actually contribute to the creation of the revenue.<br />
<br />
Now let's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders">take a look at Bernie's policy positions</a>. It is property rights, often referred to as private control of the means of production, that makes it possible for wealthy billionaires to collect the fruit of workers while doing nothing. That's capitalism Is Bernie Sanders advocating eliminating private control of the means of production? <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/real-socialists-think-bernies-a-sellout">Not even close</a>. You can love or hate what he's advocating, but you can't pretend it's socialism. It's welfare state capitalism. Basically he's a New Deal democrat. FDR was looking to save capitalism with welfare state measures. He wanted the rich to continue to collect money doing nothing, but with all the suffering of the working class at the time the risk was they would overturn the whole system and tell the rich they must work for a living like an ordinary person if they want money. This was unacceptable for FDR. Throw them a bone and they'll let the system that enriches the rich for doing nothing continue. That's what Bernie and AOC are proposing. They may prefer real socialism in their heart of hearts. Perhaps they don't think that goal is realistic given the power of capitalists. But they are not advocating socialism as a policy. Socialism and democratic socialism are different if the policy positions of Bernie and AOC define democratic socialism.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Myth 2-Democratic socialism is not use of force.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shapiro response - But what if the people vote against socialism? In that case the dissenters get gulag'd or liquidated.</blockquote>
A very bizarre commentary, is he saying Bernie is right now gulaging and liquidating Trump supporters since they don't want democratic socialism? Bernie is advocating welfare state capitalism right now and not by use of force but by persuasion. I suppose Shapiro is saying that Stalin gulag'd people, but Bernie is not advocating eliminating private control of the means of production as Stalin did.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Myth 3-Socialism is fairer.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shapiro response - Fairness is based on the idea that you should get what you deserve. It is not fair that just because you're poor your entitled to take other people's things.</blockquote>
This is another confusion of socialism and communism. It is communism that says all people should have their needs covered regardless of their contribution. Socialism doesn't require that. Socialism is about worker control of their own workplace. If Company A is doing better than Company B, the people of Company A would have more. They can willfully give to others, but they don't necessarily have to.<br />
<br />
Regarding fairness on capitalism, for Shapiro it is deeply immoral to tax a sleeping Walton family heir and give the money to maybe a Walmart worker who works very hard, much harder than the Walton heir, but isn't paid enough to purchase sufficient amounts of nutritious food to survive. Why are they paid so little? So the sleeping Walton heir can get more money on top of the money they already have, which is already more than they can spend in their lifetime. It would be unfair to have the government take some of the money given to the Walton heir as a result of the work of the worker back to the worker. I guess the sleeping Walton heir deserves it more for choosing the right parents, whereas the worker chose the wrong parents so she doesn't deserve it even though she does the actual work. Kind of a bizarre view of fairness in my opinion, not sure what else to say.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Myth 4-Socialism was not present in the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shapiro response - This is a classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy.</blockquote>
This is what I consider very misleading argumentation from Shapiro, which I think is characteristic of him. 5 minutes earlier in this video he argued that just because a country has socialist elements, like Medicare or welfare state measures, this doesn't make a country socialist. The US is a capitalist country despite some socialist elements.<br />
<br />
But now look at what he puts in the mouths of the phantom socialists he is debating. Supposedly socialists say socialism WAS NOT PRESENT at these locations. Meaning what? Meaning supposedly socialists are denying there are ANY SOCIALIST ELEMENTS in Venezuela or Cuba? An easy straw man to burn. This is not the issue. The issue is the point Shapiro raised above. Just because a country has socialist elements this doesn't make a country socialist. This argument is good enough for him when it suits him in the prior point. Now he pretends the same point can't be said of Venezuela.<br />
<br />
Venezuela has socialist elements. This doesn't make it a socialist country. There is private control of the means of production in Venezuela. The majority of the economy functions in the private sector, not the public sector. This is explained well at a video <a href="https://youtu.be/le86H7Xfjrc">here</a>.<br />
<br />
I view it more as a continuum. Countries can be compared in terms of the amount of socialist elements they have. It's fair to say the USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela have more socialist elements than the US. These are quite poor places. What critics of them don't consider though is their economic performance relative to countries that started at similar places. It's all about how Soviets are more poor than Americans, Cubans are more poor than Americans. True, but how did the USSR perform economically relative to where it started? The answer: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/8c76wh/the_true_evils_of_capitalism/dxcu57l/">surprisingly well</a>.<br />
<br />
China is another case. In <a href="http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-small-mistake.html">this comment thread</a> at David Friedman's blog I talk about how it's true that a lot of death occurred in Mao's China. What critics of socialism don't deal with though is this is far less death than occurred at the same time in capitalist India, which is a country that started at a similar place and had a similarly sized population. You can criticize socialist China, and while life there wasn't better than in the US, the world's richest country, it was better than capitalist India, which was similarly poor at the time and remains poorer.<br />
<br />
Cuba is a similar story. The embargo is harsh. It has been borderline genocidal at times. Compared to the US life is tough. Compare life to their neighbor Haiti, a capitalist country. Cuba is a utopia. Everyone is housed, everyone is fed. They don't have homelessness. Life expectancy near the US. Again, lots of people want more, lots of people will complain, but if you had to choose between life as an ordinary Cuban and any country other than the US in the region it's an easy choice. People are fleeing Honduras after a coup that installed a more capitalist friendly government, which led to US support for the coup regime. Life is better for the typical Cuban than the typical Haitian or Honduran.<br />
<br />
So to some degree I agree with Shapiro here. I agree that on the continuum the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Venezuela, these places may not be pure socialist where the workers actually had control of the means of production. But they did move more towards socialism on the continuum. They had a lot of success relative to their starting point and comparable countries. Even Venezuela, which is suffering greatly today, has had some success relative to the right wing neoliberal years (see my video above and also <a href="https://youtu.be/_fV-C1Ag5sI">this</a>). The story there is more complex than just socialism sucks because they are suffering. Plenty of capitalist countries have people suffering horrifically and plenty of capitalist influences currently affect Venezuela.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Myth 5 - When Bernie and Elizabeth Warren talk about democratic socialism, they only mean Norway, Switzerland etc.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shapiro response - In fact these are capitalist countries.</blockquote>
You'd think this would clue Shapiro in that this means Democratic Socialism in fact is capitalism with stronger welfare state measures. They're telling you that these are the countries that reflect their policy preferences. They specifically tell you that they are not advocating eliminating private control of the means of production. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are capitalists. They say they are, so when they point to a capitalist country and tell you it's an example of what they want you can believe them.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Myth 6 - Democratic socialism is the solution for the medical industry.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shapiro response - The US doesn't have a free market system. Switzerland has an Obama Care like system that is the best in the world. Other systems have various problems. Most drug innovations come from the US. The US is still the best if you have the cash.</blockquote>
It is typical of capitalism apologists to conflate capitalism and free markets. There is no such thing as a free market in a capitalist system. As I understand capitalism's early critics, like Marx, had no concept of a capitalist system that didn't exploit government to advance profit. There is no other kind of capitalism except crony capitalism. If you don't like crony capitalism you don't like real world capitalism.<br />
<br />
Many of the criticisms of publicly provided health care systems I've debunked <a href="http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2011/02/health-care-satisfaction-around-world.html">here</a>. Sure, the US produces lots of drug innovations. It's just that the majority of the substantial innovations <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_investor_risk_taker_innovator/transcript?language=en">don't come from the private sector</a>. The US has the National Institutes of Health and other publicly funded sources that drive innovation. Socialism is working in health care, and the US needs more of it.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Myth 7 - Capitalism is a giant failure.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shapiro response - This is the dumbest argument of all. Poverty has fallen dramatically since 1970.</blockquote>
But the gains in poverty he mentions since 1970 come largely from China. China today is a capitalist country. WITH HEAVY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. In other words they are doing things largely like what Bernie Sanders would suggest. Capitalism with government regulation and welfare state measures. He's making Bernie's case for him. He would know this if he wasn't trying to pretend Bernie wasn't advocating capitalism.<br />
<br />
In my opinion though capitalism is a giant failure, but not a total failure. As I understand even Marx recognized the amazing capacity capitalism had for ramping up total output rapidly. If that output was for items that people needed this would mean that we could rapidly satisfy the needs of people. That's great.<br />
<br />
But capitalism requires economic growth even though people's needs are already met (if they are met). Capitalism creates artificial needs. Capitalism via externalities is threatening the possibility of organized human society through environmental destruction. We're in the midst of an extinction event today that is worse than what occurred 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct. Capitalism is like a giant asteroid that must be stopped if we are to save ourselves. A booming stock market today won't matter much to people in future decades dealing with 4°C of warming if the world's most informed people on this topic are to be believed.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-85277715394984992302018-08-04T16:14:00.000-04:002018-08-04T16:14:26.488-04:00How King Jon Tries to Fix the Climate Crisis<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0gtWoJWznyMVdIXZTQwMa5dzoFMNNOFWIjezBp62pL0nyqkRrom02PCfgdebQeZlnBypou1gchqRnkbiOee1rikq27BJfRRkx4Jb-mi98HVRvH4g0tZFicuWp-o5shwl9YfyCg6lidYA/s1600/Fire.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="348" data-original-width="295" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0gtWoJWznyMVdIXZTQwMa5dzoFMNNOFWIjezBp62pL0nyqkRrom02PCfgdebQeZlnBypou1gchqRnkbiOee1rikq27BJfRRkx4Jb-mi98HVRvH4g0tZFicuWp-o5shwl9YfyCg6lidYA/s320/Fire.JPG" width="271" /></a></div>
I believe we are witnessing the front end of the pain that global warming will be delivering to humanity. Things like the fact that it's been over 90<b style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">°</b> <a href="https://mashable.com/2018/07/31/arctic-heat-wave-climate-change">above the arctic circle</a> this week. Things like <a href="https://grist.org/article/californias-fire-tornado-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/">fire tornadoes</a>, or 500 people dead in a <a href="https://www.dailysabah.com/asia/2018/07/18/floods-landslides-kill-511-in-indias-monsoon-season">recent monsoon in India</a>. The major media barely mentions the connection of these events to climate change (see <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/07/climate-change-media-coverage-media-matters">here</a> and <a href="https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141567/media-essentially-stopped-covering-climate-change">here</a>). Conservatives don't even admit the existence of a problem. They have been so effectively propagandized by corporate funded think tanks and corporate media that they cannot see the threat that looms and will not see any time soon. Those of us that have extracted ourselves from right wing mind control need to take the bull by the horns and fight to make our planet habitable for the future.<br />
<br />
I don't have the power to compel people to follow my orders. But I've been thinking about it. What would I do if I could? Of course before doing anything I'd try to get the best advice I could, but here's my initial sense of the direction I'd take.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately I see only one rational path. Society must be organized to take on this threat in much the same way the US organized to defeat the Nazi's during WWII. Consumption must be constrained. Resources must be devoted producing items that are essential to human survival and also to reversing the damage, just like resources were diverted to armaments during WWII.<br />
<br />
So if I were king and you haven't yet taken that trip to Hawaii..well..too late. That kind of crap is done. I have a friend that recently invited me to join him on a cruise. I definitely like the idea, not so much because I want to be on a boat, but because I like being around people that I know. He shared a video that was basically a <a href="https://youtu.be/cMnfQ4fiVf8">tour of the boat</a>. Watching these people bouncing in bungee playhouses, sliding through water slides, being entertained with singing and dancing, it really struck me as odd. Depraved in a sense. This mountain of a structure was constructed, gets pushed around in water and must burn crazy amounts of fossil fuel, all to provide a weird distraction to people. If it's King Jon I can tell you that these type of things are at an end.<br />
<br />
We must focus our energy on meeting critical needs and reversing the damage we have done. Humans need clean water, food, shelter, medical care, and clothing. We have to maintain the infrastructure that permits these functions and also permits humans to turn the sick planet around.<br />
<br />
If it's King Jon the food is going to be food that contributes the least to global warming. That means an end to factory farming. As the human diet shifts away from meat, eggs, and dairy and towards legumes, potatoes, fruits, and vegetables I believe the science shows that this generates an amazing side benefit. The energy needed to treat chronic disease falls dramatically. Heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer. Rates of all would plummet. This means less energy needed for health services. The truth is there are foods that actually work better than drugs for things like cholesterol and diabetes and they have no side effects. But they are not the focus of our profit driven health economy. This insanity would end immediately.<br />
<br />
The US already has tons of shelter space. Multiple empty homes for every homeless person. The entire building where I work would be emptied. My job is unnecessary. I'm in the auto industry. I've spent the last 2.5 years of my life developing a radio for a luxury vehicle. In King Jon's world everyone working in my building goes home and separately focuses on taking steps that reverse the pending damage. That could mean planting a garden if the weather is suitable. Maybe it means planting trees, teaching others to do it. This is where I'd get the opinion of experts to figure out what individuals can do. There will be some work activities that need to be done. We will need electricity, some infrastructure to transport items as needed (maybe food that can't be grown in some regions efficiently). We need doctors, dentists, surgeons. But I do believe largely we need people to stop working. Stay home, be with your family, meet your neighbors, work together on joint projects. A lot of energy is expended at the workplace and traveling to and from the workplace so as to create crap people don't need. The burning of that energy needs to stop and mental energy needs to be focused on needful activities.<br />
<br />
We already have tons of clothing. Mountains of discarded clothes go to donation. So much that the donation houses can't cope with all of it. It gets shipped around the world to make room for new, more fashionable clothing. King Jon stops this cycle. You already have enough, make it work, learn to sew/patch as you go forward.<br />
<br />
How am I going to motivate people to support these efforts? What am I going to do with people that refuse to go along? Wouldn't everyone want to be a non-worker as opposed to say a researcher working to reverse the damage or develop renewable energy? There is much more I could say about these matters, but in summary my belief is that humans could resolve these problems and make the planet habitable for future generations. In fact I do believe people would be happier. We would have to extract ourselves from right wing mind control that has us thinking profit for non-working investors should be the point of a healthy economy and meeting everyone's basic needs is impossible without sending the largest share of our earnings to sleeping billionaires. We aren't going to get there right away, but if we don't get there soon I believe massive suffering is coming. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, there is no alternative. We either organize and fix it or we die. I don't see another option.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-14398725356195175222018-05-26T19:13:00.000-04:002018-05-26T19:13:38.801-04:00Vegan Diet Update - Blood Test ResultsJust got results from my physical after having eaten as a vegan for 3 months. In that time I've been soaking up nutritional information as best I can. I found a great resource right <a href="https://nutritionfacts.org/">here</a>. It's one man's effort to make people aware of what the science has to say about nutrition. Not for profit, no supplements or nutrition products for sale. Having watched a lot of his videos and having read and watched other material I kind of expected the results you see below. And my prior numbers were me making my best effort. I get financial incentives from work to hit certain health targets, so I was exercising hard and trying to eat what I thought was healthy in the weeks leading up to that measurement. In fact in the past I've had results that were quite a bit worse that what you see for my November 2016 numbers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjetBwFSUvUS2lLy2Bc4ZZ1wSwV6vglwTKl-eHN9njmpSzB14-Nhc55xDD8oHZ3GwtywbeGlougy8_75v0QJ0ewZDp8gpmo_I4f56Z70Ao67l3ZhCmPC_eupxz9VoCZxI4ZCvhZ2qcwf-s/s1600/Blood.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjetBwFSUvUS2lLy2Bc4ZZ1wSwV6vglwTKl-eHN9njmpSzB14-Nhc55xDD8oHZ3GwtywbeGlougy8_75v0QJ0ewZDp8gpmo_I4f56Z70Ao67l3ZhCmPC_eupxz9VoCZxI4ZCvhZ2qcwf-s/s1600/Blood.PNG" /></a></div>
This time I was not really exercising. I mentioned in my prior post that I had been doing some intermittent fasting, but I stopped soon after making that statement, so over 2 months ago. I do think that's a good thing to do, I just haven't been doing it. Despite that I have a very substantial reduction in overall cholesterol. Similarly for LDL, or "bad" cholesterol.<br />
<br />
When I was eating a higher protein diet I became convinced that the problem of high cholesterol was overblown. I <a href="https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-do-we-know-that-cholesterol-causes-heart-disease/">no longer think that</a>. Though the official recommendation from your doctor will be that you should shoot for an LDL cholesterol level below 100, the <a href="https://nutritionfacts.org/video/optimal-cholesterol-level/">evidence tells us</a> in fact we want to be between 50 and 70. The experts think it would be asking too much of patients to target that level, but as that video shows vegans may reach this level without even trying. As you can see I'm a bit short of the target, but do expect I will continue to improve with time.<br />
<br />
Apparently cholesterol lowering drugs <a href="https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/08/how-well-do-cholesterol-lowering-drugs-actually-work/">only provide about a 3% improvement in mortality</a>. A whole food plant based diet on the other hand looks to be about 20 times better. Better than drugs, no side effects, reduces animal suffering, reduces ones contribution to environmental destruction. It's looking to be about the biggest win-win-win I've come across. I am convinced that if it weren't for the $186 billion meat industry and $1 trillion pharmaceutical industry many more people would be eating in this way, and our leading killers (heart disease and cancer) would affect drastically fewer people.<br />
<br />
This is what happens when you structure an economy for profit maximization rather than meeting people's needs. In fact on capitalism a population that lacks needs is catastrophic. In America hundreds of millions of people are taking prescription drugs. I believe a huge chunk of that if not a majority could be eliminated if the entire population adopted the right whole food plant based diet. Based on what I've learned from nutritionfacts.org and other sources I believe that the scientific evidence has supported this conclusion for decades. The only reason it isn't common knowledge is that it is a conclusion that undermines profits for certain powerful corporate sectors. Industry studies attempt to create confusion as the tobacco industry did long ago. It is profit over people. It needs to end.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-7839461938261536542018-02-25T10:13:00.001-05:002018-02-25T10:13:27.319-05:00Trying a Vegan DietAnybody that is concerned with global warming and general environmental problems should probably prefer a vegan diet. Apparently animal agriculture is responsible for a greater share of greenhouse gases generated than <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM">all transportation combined</a>. In addition the rain forest, one of our major carbon sinks, is being cleared to create pasture for feeding livestock. This is major havoc. It's like we're burning the candle at both ends.<br />
<br />
The other side of it is the animal suffering. One of the recommendations I keep seeing on Netflix is called "Earthlings". Apparently it's a movie that depicts the horrors of the slaughterhouse and humanity's general treatment of animals to produce food. I can't bring myself to watch it. I have to admit that if I can't even bring myself to watch the actions that are taken to meet the demand I create when I purchase meat and dairy I need to make an effort to not make these purchases.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/94/28/5f/94285f370df3e6806ceb0ed71de046e2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/94/28/5f/94285f370df3e6806ceb0ed71de046e2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Maybe what has held me back to this point is my belief that you need it for good health. I used to do a quasi hi-protein diet called The Zone. Not as high as Atkins, but perhaps higher than what a typical American would eat. Information related to this diet helped develop in me a sufficient fear of diabetes. Diabetes comes about from the consumption of sugar. Or so I thought.<br />
<br />
Ultimately I abandoned the diet because though I did lose some weight it caused me to feel physically weak. I upped my carbs and my strength returned. Since then I haven't really had a consistent diet plan, except a general struggle to avoid junk food.<br />
<br />
My sister recently recommended a movie called "What the Health" which is also on Netflix. I took a look at it. I realized once I started watching it that I had started it before. But when I saw the claim that sugar does not cause diabetes I turned it off. It seemed too outlandish. But this time since my sister had asked for my opinion on it I watched it all the way through. It claimed that diabetes is not just prevented with a vegan diet, it can be reversed. I had always thought once you have diabetes you are stuck with it. You just have to manage it. The movie made all kinds of claims about people improving their health with a vegan diet.<br />
<br />
I did what I often do when I encounter information like this. I started looking for criticism. I looked into the controversial claims. Links like <a href="https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/eating-with-diabetes/diabetes-food-myths/myth-sugar-causes-diabetes">this one</a> seem to admit that it really isn't sugar that causes diabetes, but general obesity. If eating sugar leads to weight gain (maybe your sugar comes in the form of donuts) you can get diabetes that way, but you don't really get it from apples and oranges. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/well/eat/good-vegan-bad-vegan.html">Here's</a> a critic of the film in the NY Times. They argue that being vegan doesn't guarantee a better result because it's possible to eat very unhealthy vegan food (duh). They point out that any amount of reduction in consumption of animal products is beneficial, so you don't have to go all the way as this film advises. This is portrayed like it's evidence the movie is mistaken. Doesn't that in fact support the thesis of the movie? Very strange.<br />
<br />
I'm not pretending I know what the truth is based on my limited research, but my thinking is I'll give it a shot. If it works for me, then great. I'm reducing animal suffering and environmental damage. If it doesn't work I'll have to adjust.<br />
<br />
I've been doing it for a week and a half now. I notice a couple of bonuses already. My resting heart rate has dropped, from high 60's to now high 50's. And I haven't been doing any cardio. I have also lost a few pounds. This is also at least partly if not mostly due to intermittent fasting. That's another diet method that I'm convinced is good for you that I started about 3 weeks ago. The other bonus is I'm usually quite sore when I do certain physical activities that involve muscles I haven't used in a while. I've had a couple of instances where I was sure I would be extremely sore the next day, but I wasn't.<br />
<br />
I do have a physical coming up in a couple of months so I'll continue to monitor. Honestly I hadn't been expecting massive improvement as I had already been functioning as quasi-vegetarian. Generally I was eating meat when I was involved in an event where food was prepared for a group, but I wasn't preparing or ordering meat when it was just me. So I was eating meat only lightly, but also consuming dairy regularly. Now I'm all in, so we'll see if this produces health benefits. Benefits are not even required. As long as I feel no worse off this is the way to go for me.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-31253367200270699392017-09-29T04:45:00.001-04:002017-09-29T04:45:19.878-04:00Stop Resisting-Police Execute a Search WarrantI'm really just posting this here because I keep losing it and I like to share with others sometimes.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2-y2Wm91y1Y/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2-y2Wm91y1Y?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-1539810554876164522017-08-08T21:01:00.001-04:002017-08-08T21:01:26.512-04:00Republican love for the poorI had a discussion with some conservative relatives recently that got me thinking. I asked if they supported Trump's tax cut for the rich that would kick millions of people off their health care plans. Is that what our country needs right now? Give people making over $250K a tax cut and kick 20 million people off of health care? Seems obviously terrible.<br />
<br />
"Well, they aren't being kicked off. They are choosing to not buy insurance. They now have a choice that they didn't have before. Before they were forced to buy insurance they didn't want. Now they can spend money as they choose."<br />
<br />
You see how brilliant these conservative think tanks are? That's probably where this argument originated. From there to Fox News, to my brother's head. The think tanks get paid to craft arguments. Arguments that advance the agenda of the rich. This is the kind of stuff they come up with. The rich want tax cuts. How to make this palatable to the public that doesn't think this is a good idea? Pretend it is our concern for the poor that drives us. We only want these poor people who can't afford health insurance to have the choice of not buying it.<br />
<br />
I realize that this is a strategy you get over and over. You know why we shouldn't raise the minimum wage? It will hurt the poor. The first person to lose his job when minimum wage goes up is the person with the least amount of skills. Probably the poorest person.<br />
<br />
Isn't it strange that poor people advocacy groups don't advance arguments like this? They're always flowing from the right wing think tanks whose goal is to advance the arguments of their wealthy backers, like the Koch brothers.<br />
<br />
I asked my brother to think this through with regards to health care. Families making less than $25K get full medical coverage for free right now under Obama Care (if they are in a state that accepted Medicaid expansion). These people are obviously not better off when you take away their subsidy and they lose health coverage. People that make between $25K and $60K get a subsidy that phases out the closer you get to $60K. So people making $30K or $35K are getting a significant subsidy. We're taking away that subsidy to make the tax cuts for the rich possible. We're doing this because we're concerned about the poor rather than the rich?<br />
<br />
"Yes. When you take away a person's subsidy this motivates them to stand on their own two feet and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps."<br />
<br />
Grrrr. Again, isn't it strange that Oxfam or other anti-poverty groups do not advance arguments like this (to my knowledge). They don't say "When can we strip the poor of Medicaid so we can finally see some improvement in their lives." It's the institutions representing the interests of the rich that advance these arguments.<br />
<br />
And it's a common strategy. We need fewer environmental protections. Removing regulations will cause the economy to blossom, providing jobs desperately needed by the poor. We need to invade Iraq to relieve the suffering of the poor, oppressed Iraqi people. Wealth trickles down. Tax cuts for the rich, like a reduction in environmental protections, is a shot in the arm for business and will allow them to hire more people. It's a mere happenstance that my wealthy backers from the coal industry don't want us to pursue reductions in fossil fuel emissions. What I'm really concerned with is the poor miners in West Virginia.<br />
<br />
One thing we know about our government generally is that <a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04/22/study-shows-wealthy-americans-and-businesses-control-politics-and-policy">it is not responsive to the concerns of the non-wealthy</a>. They justify their policy positions by pretending they do it all for the common man, the poor man. It's total crap. What's frustrating is that many common men buy it.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-17563343759554270742017-04-05T11:29:00.000-04:002017-04-05T11:42:36.148-04:00Bryan Caplan Podcast ThoughtsSo HP, I thought I'd share some thoughts on <a href="http://rubinreport.libsyn.com/ep-72-bryan-caplan">this podcast</a> you recommended.<br />
<br />
Wow, these guys are smug. And I don't think you are ashamed to say that it rubs off on you. But man, it's tough to take because to me their ideas are so terrible. It's ignorance combined with arrogance. A bad combination.<br />
<br />
I was struck in the early part with this contrast. "YOU are the best arbiter of how your money should be spent, YOU are the better judge as opposed to government." YOU are super smart and we don't want the government to get in your way. Later we'd learn that people are pretty smart in signing away their right to sue a corporation and agreeing to settle disputes as dictated by corporate sponsored arbiters. People are really good judges of whether or not they should acquire health insurance. I guess people are really good at predicting if they might slip and fall somehow, or maybe develop an infection that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. People are super smart.<br />
<br />
But then what do you think about the general population? What's their general understanding of matters like this? Yuck, yuck, people are so STOOPID. OK, so people are really wise when it comes to signing away their rights, balancing risk vs cost, etc. Generally though people are really stupid when it comes to matters related to this. In fact Caplan wrote a whole book about how people are stupid. So let's have a free market where concentrated corporate power on one side comes to terms with individual stupid people on the other without any checks by an entity like a government. Doesn't that seem like a strange conclusion?<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Rubin subscribes to this myth of the besieged conservative professor on campus, how it's overrun with liberal hordes that must terrorize someone like Caplan, and Caplan had to burst that bubble based on his experiences. No problems. In fact economics departments are dominated by conservatives all over the country, not just at George Mason, and it's not much of a problem. This is part of the side benefit of removing public funding from schools. It allows right wingers to shower universities with money so they hire the kind of people the corporate world prefers. Among the conditions of <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/spreading-the-free-market-gospel/413239/">acceptance of money at Florida State from the Koch brothers was</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "lyon text" , "georgia" , "times" , serif; font-size: 18px;">Teachings must align with the libertarian economic philosophy of Charles Koch, the Charles Koch Foundation would maintain partial control over faculty hiring and the chairman of the school’s economics department—a prominent economic theorist—must stay in place for another three years despite his plans to step down.</span></blockquote>
<br />
It's tough for libertarians to win when the university is publicly funded because if the amount of money coming in doesn't depend on whether the conclusion is what the funder wants to hear the conclusion might as well be based on the evidence.<br />
<br />
What do you think of this discussion on policing? Police departments should be privatized and paid for by the local community. Rubin asks a good question. Wouldn't this mean that rich areas, like Beverly Hills, would have a robust police force, even though they have less need for these services, and poorer places will lack police forces even though they need them more? Caplan's response: "Well, they just have to make it a priority if they need it and just come up with the money." This to me is the frustrating thing about libertatarians. What about the real world? They do not have the money. In reality the resources are sent where they are not needed. Are you concerned? He doesn't seem to care. And for me that's a general critique of capitalism. The resources go where they are not needed. It's super inefficient.<br />
<br />
Or health care. We're the richest country in the world. Other first world nations cover all their people with care that the people are generally happy with, and they do it at about half the price. There was no mention of that fact. Instead he offers no government support for ordinary poor people. If they break their leg, tough luck. Hope charity can help you resolve it. Rubin asks another great question, but unfortunately when Caplan ignored the question Rubin didn't push him. Has any place in the real world had charity step in when government help was removed? Caplan talks a lot but doesn't answer. He's going to implement a solution that has never worked. He'd have real people with broken legs and easily treated infections walking around without help and he'd say "tough luck." Not for him of course with his good salary and benefits, just for the poor. In the world's richest country where a few crazy rich people have mountains of wealth that they could hardly spend if they tried. This bizarre lack of empathy is really psychotic. His priorities are to get tax cuts into the hands of the rich, like the heirs to the Walton fortune. This is the greater good for him I guess.<br />
<br />
Another laughable concept is his idea to pay everyone to take a civics test every year and you get $100. "How would that be funded?" He has no idea. Who would profit from that? Nobody. There's nothing preventing that from happening today via charity, but it isn't happening. This guy is a professor? I get that he was just saying this is a better way than the current way, but it's interesting to note that on his system this would not happen.<br />
<br />
Here's another thing that seems strange to me. A professor should never call himself an "anarcho-capitalist". Capitalism is the opposite of anarchy. As a professor you should know what anarchy is and how it is capitalism's opposite, and how it has been aggressively opposed to capitalism for it's entire history. It means without hierarchy. Go to the sweat shops that Caplan probably likes so much and tell the young girls forced to perform sexual favors for the boss how they are the boss's equal and are not the boss's subordinates. Subordination is hierarchy, not anarchy.<br />
<br />
It's a similar story for the world "libertarian". This was a word that was long identified with leftists. Now it means someone that somehow sees property rights as some sort of foundational principle, how rich people should continue to acquire wealth from the labor of others. Rothbard bragged of co-opting the word from leftists. Businesses are tyrannies. If you like more power for tyrannical institutions that's fine, but don't call it liberty. I saw a somewhat good video on this circulating Facebook, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqN4UYeJwiA">here</a> if you missed it.<br />
<br />
It's cool that he's a pacifist, but this is another one of those "Who cares about the real world" views. Capitalism is why we have wars. Capitalists want access/control of cheap resources and labor. They do what they can do get access in a peaceful way, but when that fails they will just go to war. It is property rights that drive war. So he can be pacifist all he wants, but what he's advocating is the foundation of war in our world. Did you ever read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"? You should, but I know you're busy, so maybe <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVsB07CcSNw">watch this video</a>. We are at war all over the world because of the needs of the most powerful economic interests in this country, and Caplan wants to strengthen these players.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-6264512359173405792016-11-19T11:04:00.002-05:002016-11-19T11:07:30.855-05:00Post Election ThoughtsI can't say I saw this coming. I thought it was possible, as anybody did. I knew Hillary is not an appealing figure. She doesn't generate a lot of enthusiasm. But at the end of the day I figured since all of the money and all of the power was behind her the rich wouldn't let her lose. Even if they had to cheat. It would seem our elections are fair.<br />
<br />
I was planning to vote for Stein, but as Michigan tightened I decided to go for Hillary. I thought it was pretty important that Trump not win, so if you are in a swing state you have to consider that. We are at a critical point on the environment, or maybe we're beyond critical. Yet Trump said he'd <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174">cancel the Paris climate agreement</a>. He wants <a href="http://time.com/4447586/trump-coal-industry-energy/">more coal</a>. He'll likely ram through the <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/what-will-trump-presidency-mean-dakota-access-pipeline-n682746">Dakota access pipeline</a>. He's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/donald-trump-keystone-pipeline-support/">for the Keystone pipeline</a>.<br />
<br />
I <a href="http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2012/07/right-wing-suggestions-regarding.html">said in 2012</a> that I think scientists understate the severity of the problem we face. Unfortunately I think what we're seeing with Arctic ice, with glaciers, with <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/second-warmest-october-cements-hottest-year-20883">global temperatures records</a>, is bearing that out. We're already heading towards the cliff. The Paris agreement isn't going to prevent massive suffering, but it may buy us enough time to provide some mitigation. Trump pledges to block even these modest measures.<br />
<br />
The future seems pretty grim. Along the way to climate disaster Trump has some other painful items in store. Remember the debt ceiling battles of the past? The sticking point for Republicans is they wanted to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis_of_2013">end Medicare</a>. Make no mistake about it. They'll say "privatize Medicare" as if Medicare would still exist. Medicare is a single payer health care system for the elderly. You privatize it and it's no longer Medicare. They'll provide vouchers, but not at the federal level as the federal government has enough clout to push back against corporate profit gouging patients and denying them coverage. You send block grant money to the states, who are very easy to push around. Profits will go through the roof, money spent on actual care will decline. Your death panels will have arrived.<br />
<br />
Trump wants to <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-epa-dept-of-education">scale back the EPA</a>. Clean air and clean water will then be less regulated. Apparently he trusts the "free markets" to take care of it. Now when your kids start having poor brain function you won't know why. Republicans have long wanted to reduce funding to NASA, as NASA data makes us aware of global warming. Trump could <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/trump-will-probably-undo-obamas-budget-increases-for-earth-sciences/">help them succeed</a>. It's not enough that they do damage to the planet. They want to make sure we lack knowledge about the details of the damage.<br />
<br />
Obviously repealing Obama Care on day 1, as <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/10/donald-trumps-campaign-promises-first-100-days/">Trump has promised</a>, is going to be a disaster for millions of Americans that now do have health care they would otherwise lack.<br />
<br />
On the flip side some have argued that this is for the best. With Hillary you're on a disastrous climate path, but you also have a progressive movement lulled to sleep under the delusion that we have someone on our side as President. It was Obama trying to ram through TPP. He's the one that has locked in the surveillance state and rescinded habeas corpus. These are tools now being handed off to an authoritarian, as real progressives warned they would be eventually. Maybe this galvinization of the left creates space for a true progressive movement, one that brings about the real, urgent change that can no longer be delayed. That may happen. If it doesn't Nov 8 could go down as the most important date in human history, the day we sealed our fate.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-15264727826603689702016-10-15T10:13:00.000-04:002016-10-15T10:13:40.209-04:00Why Such a Close Election?The latest polling at <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html">realclearpolitics</a> has Trump down to Clinton by 6.7 points. If the election were today Trump might win 20 states.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984">Mondale</a> won 1 state and lost to Reagan by 18 points. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988">Dukakis</a> lost to Bush by almost 8 points and won 10 states. Does this make sense?<br />
<br />
I don't think it's especially controversial to say that Trump is the worst human being and candidate that has been nominated for President in my lifetime, at least in terms of his moral character and temperament. I think it's pretty obvious he's incompetent, but some might debate that. On the issues opinions will differ. Overall on non-issue related categories he's unbelievably bad.<br />
<br />
It truly seems unreal to me. You have the genital grabbing, the inappropriate talk towards 10 year old girls, saying his accusers aren't attractive enough to be groped, admission of imposing himself on naked teenagers in a dressing room. Hillary is running against a true monster. A dangerous abusive sexual predator that should be locked up to protect women.<br />
<br />
And yet he's doing better than Mondale, Dukakis, or McGovern. He's going to win more than one state, which is more than some nominees could say. How is he doing so well?<br />
<br />
I think Democrats should think about this question right now. If they can't put away a candidate like this, what does that say about them?<br />
<br />
In my discussions with Trump supporters and in my own mind I can think of several reasons Trump gets this level of support.<br />
<br />
1-Some just feel that strongly about the issues. Abortion is one. True, Trump may not be genuinely pro-life. He probably doesn't even care about the issue. But he'll nominate a pro-life Supreme Court justice anyway. At least to please the base. Hillary of course will not do that. Some people continue to believe in trickle down economics. He will cut taxes for corporations and wealthy people and a lot of people continue to believe this is how you improve an economy. A lot of people think illegal immigration is a serious threat to their life and livelihood.<br />
<br />
Progressives should think about it this way. What if our candidate was the sexual predator? What if we nominated Bill Clinton and the worst said of Clinton and his treatment of women was true? But his opponent thought climate change was a liberal conspiracy, wanted to torture the children of terrorists, wanted to cut taxes for the wealthy, wanted to strengthen rulings like Citizen United to maintain the corporate control of government? I'd probably vote for Clinton anyway. I wouldn't degrade myself as Trump's supporters are doing and make excuses for the behavior (it's just locker room talk, people talk like this all the time, he's telling the truth now even though we have audio of him saying the opposite, he asked for forgiveness so we should let it go). I would own it and just say the issues are too important.<br />
<br />
2-Hillary is this bad of a candidate. I don't think she's the monster she's portrayed to be. But she is an insider. So was Obama. That doesn't have to mean she's a terrible person. She might have simply concluded that there's no way to win without the support of billionaires, so you have to do their bidding to some degree or lose forever. That may be what she and Obama concluded. On the other hand they may genuinely be insiders that care more for the interests of the wealthy than ordinary people. Regardless of what they think deep down they actually do the bidding of the wealthy first. They do not punish bankers. They do push trade deals the billionaires want. Their tax increases on the wealthy are half measures. Not even. They have sustained for-profit health care, which is killing thousands of Americans every year. They do it because the owners want it. They go to war for reasons that have nothing to do with our national security, but really either the <a href="http://newobserveronline.com/clinton-destroy-syria-israel/">security of Israel</a> or for the interests of money. People are sick of this. I know a Muslim that intends to vote for Trump and he says "I know Trump hates me and people of my religion, but I'm sick of the corrupt insider government we have here." That's how tired people are of the cesspool Washington has become.<br />
<br />
3-Citizens United. Some billionaires want their tax cuts and regulation cuts, so they will pump money into elections to help Trump win. This is part of the reason Hillary can't put Trump away.<br />
<br />
4-Some people are really racist and misogynistic. They don't even mind the revelations.<br />
<br />
Personally there is one major issue that causes my support for Hillary to be very tepid. I think she could provoke a nuclear war. Russia is taking steps that indicate they fear this outcome. Hillary is such a committed hawk, such a committed apologist for Israel's aims, that she's risking a nuclear confrontation. Trump talks about getting along with Putin. I think he's quite right about that. We are the ones arming what was Al Qaeda in Syria. We have played a critical role in provoking the devastation in Syria, which is all the more reason I think Americans have an obligation to help the refugees. Sexual harassment is terrible. But nuclear war is worse. So there are going to be some on the left that might prefer Trump despite his unbelievable behavior towards women. I'm not saying I'm in that camp. I think Trump is even more dangerous with nukes at his disposal than Hillary. But there are reasons Hillary is not trouncing him right now, and some reasons have merit in my view.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-3118710927026939432016-06-07T07:47:00.001-04:002016-06-07T07:47:20.351-04:00Marxist Business Consulting<a href="http://existentialcomics.com/comic/136">What would you say you do?</a> Apparently the women in red is Ayn Rand.<br />
<br />
In case you don't know the movie scene this references, it's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4OvQIGDg4I">here</a>.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-89565650729944715782016-06-04T19:24:00.000-04:002016-06-04T19:24:05.827-04:00Election ThoughtsIt's been kind of fun over the last few months fantasizing about Bernie actually winning the Democratic nomination. Really it's like thinking about winning the lottery. Not gonna happen, but indulging the fantasy is enjoyable sometimes. But Jill Stein I think <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTqwof5VvbA">captured it well</a> back in December. There's just no way the Democratic establishment and the DNC are going to let that happen.<br />
<br />
The DNC has certainly been in Hillary's corner, but I'm not sure it would have changed anything if they had been neutral. Hillary gets plenty of corporate media support and that probably would have been enough. Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, and other supposed liberal commentators I think would have gotten it done. <a href="https://youtu.be/RihhE7Qgkww?t=30s">For Ellen Degeneres</a> Hillary is the ONLY candidate running that has stood for equal rights for everyone (even though Hillary was against gay marriage and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8">said so on Ellen's show in 2007</a> which could be contrasted with <a href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/">Bernie's record</a>). <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbW8JWkU5XE">Here's Joy Behar</a> on The View. Bernie, why are you still harping on this Iraq war thing? What's the big deal? That reminded me of <a href="http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/10/13/cnn-democratic-debate-full-transcript/">a question put to Lincoln Chafee</a> about Hillary's Iraq war vote. She said she was sorry. Why isn't that good enough? This is the way the corporate media frames these debates.<br />
<br />
So it's Hillary for the D's even though every poll I've seen shows Bernie has a better chance of beating Trump. And of course it could get even worse for Hillary as a recommendation to indict from the FBI could come at any moment. That's how strong the oligarchy is. The D's will put up a very weak candidate against Trump, and he is an extremely dangerous character. We really could end up with a Trump presidency, which I think most establishment people understand is extremely risky. But Bernie has this hostility to bankers and a desire to bring medical care to ordinary people at the expense of corporate profit. This is unacceptable. Profit is more important than keeping Trump away from the nuclear codes.<br />
<br />
Hillary's email shenanigans would certainly be a serious problem for an ordinary person, but she's powerful so rules tend to not apply. I don't see that her recklessness in securing secret and top secret information will be a problem for her. What could be a problem though is other information that is revealed in the emails FBI investigators are reviewing. It seems Hillary thought in establishing a private server she was going to prevent the world from seeing what she was up to. Who knows what crimes she might discuss when she assumes nobody will see. My feeling is there is something major there and the FBI is going to recommend an indictment.<br />
<br />
It's not unlike the Whitewater investigation. The accusations are the kind of thing that would be a big deal for an ordinary person, but not necessarily a powerful person. While Whitewater itself didn't damage the Clintons the information revealed as a result of the Whitewater investigation did. The same could happen here.<br />
<br />
Whether the justice department actually follows through of course depends on the severity of the crime, the strength of the evidence, and the power of the Clinton's within the Democratic establishment. But what I see from the D's is regardless of what happens they are going to go forward with a very unlikeable Hillary Clinton who is further wounded by this whole email problem.<br />
<br />
The outcome seems bad no matter which way you slice it. Trump could win. Or alternatively Hillary could win despite everything. People either decide her crimes don't matter or Trump is too dangerous. Imagine what the midterms will look like for the Democrats with Hillary as president. Liberals have a hard enough time getting out the vote under the relatively likeable Obama. 2018 could be a crazy Republican sweep. We get another decade of gerrymandered districts as before among other problems.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com0