kunstler | You can’t overstate how fortunate this country was after the Second
World War. The mid-twentieth century was the apex of American industrial
wealth. We produced real goods and lived in extraordinary comfort. Now,
of course that has all turned around, the industry is mostly bygone,
the magnificent energy supply is getting sketchy, and all that’s left is
a false-front financialized economy based on swindling and
accounting fraud. Medicine and health care have become unabashed
rackets, and good luck finding a place to live for less than half of
your monthly income.
Things have changed, as Bob Dylan once noted in song, and the times
they are a ‘changing once again. This is probably the worst time in
recent history to go full-bore socialist. Look, it’s as simple as this:
the 20th century saw the greatest rise of global GDP ever.
The prospect of that is what drove the various socialisms of the period —
the belief that there would be evermore material wealth and that a lot
of it had to be fairly redistributed to the workers who brought it into
being. You can debate the finer socio-ethical points of that — and
indeed that’s what much of politics consisted of throughout the
industrialized world — but the stunning bonanza of wealth compelled it.
That is the world we are moving out of right now, despite the
fantasies of Elon Musk and the many techno pied pipers like him. GDP
growth has stalled, the implacable trend is toward contraction, and the
wizards of financial hocus-pocus are running out of tricks for
pretending that they create anything of value. In short: there’s no there
there. All that’s left are IOUs for loans that will never be paid back —
and that kind of loan (especially in the form of a bond) doesn’t have
any value.
So, the Democratic Party has embarked on a crusade to redistribute
the wealth of the nation at the exact moment when the “wealth” is
turning out to be gone. Good luck with that.
What intellectuals don't get about MIGRATION is the ethical notion of SYMMETRY:
OPEN BORDERS work if and only if the number of pple who want to go from EU/US to Africa/LatinAmer equals Africans/Latin Amer who want to move to EU/US
Independent | What is really needed in dealing with cannabis is
a “tobacco moment”, as with cigarettes 50 years ago, when a majority of
people became convinced that smoking might give them cancer and kill
them. Since then the number of cigarette smokers in Britain has fallen by two-thirds.
A depressing aspect of the present debate about cannabis is
that so many proponents of legalisation or decriminalisation have
clearly not taken on board that the causal link between cannabis and psychosis has
been scientifically proven over the past ten years, just as the
connection between cancer and cigarettes was proved in the late 1940s
and 1950s.
The proofs have emerged in a series of scientific studies
that reach the same grim conclusion: taking cannabis significantly
increases the risk of schizophrenia. One study in The Lancet Psychiatry
concludes that “the risk of individuals having a psychotic disorder
showed a roughly three times increase in users of skunk-like cannabis,
compared with those who never used cannabis”.
As 94 per cent of cannabis seized by the police today is super-strength skunk,
compared to 51 per cent in 2005, almost all those who take the drug
today will be vulnerable to this three-fold increase in the likelihood
that they will develop psychosis.
Mental health professionals have long had no doubts about the danger.
Five years ago, I asked Sir Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric
research at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, about them. He said
that studies showed that “if the risk of schizophrenia for the general
population is about one per cent, the evidence is that, if you take
ordinary cannabis, it is two per cent; if you smoke regularly you might
push it up to four per cent; and if you smoke ‘skunk’ every day you push
it up to eight per cent”.
Anybody wondering what happens to this 8 per cent of the skunk-smoking population should visit any mental hospital in Britain or speak to somebody who has done so.
Dr Humphrey Needham-Bennett, medical director and consultant
psychiatrist of Cygnet Hospital, Godden Green in Sevenoaks, explained to
me that among his patients “cannabis use is so common that I assume
that people use or used it. It’s quite surprising when people say ‘no, I
don’t use drugs’.”
The connection between schizophrenia and cannabis was long
suspected by specialists but it retained its reputation as a relatively
benign drug, its image softened by the afterglow of its association with
cultural and sexual liberation in the 1960s and 1970s.
WaPo | For many people, leisure time now means screen time.
Mom’s on social media, Dad’s surfing the Web, sister is texting friends,
and brother is playing a multiplayer shooting game like Fortnite.
But are they addicted? In June, the World Health Organization announced
that “gaming disorder” would be included in its disease classification
manual, reigniting debates over whether an activity engaged in by so
many could be classified as a disorder.
Experts were quick to point out that only 1 to 3 percent of gamers are likely to fit the diagnostic criteria,
such as lack of control over gaming, giving gaming priority over other
activities and allowing gaming to significantly impair such important
areas of life as social relationships.
Those low
numbers may give the impression that most people don’t have anything to
worry about. Not true. Nearly all teens, as well as most adults, have
been profoundly affected by the increasing predominance of electronic
devices in our lives. Many people suspect that today’s teens spend much
more time with screens and much less time with their peers face-to-face
than did earlier generations,and my analysis of numerous large
surveys of teens of various ages shows this to be true: The number of
17- and 18-year-olds who get together with their friends every day, for
example, dropped by more than 40 percent between 2000 and 2016. Teens
are also sleeping less, with sleep deprivation spiking
after 2010. Similar to the language in the WHO’s addiction criteria,
they are prioritizing time on their electronic devices over other
activities (and no, it’s not because they are studying more: Teens
actually spend less time on homework
than students did in the 1990s). Regardless of any questions around
addiction, how teens spend their free time has fundamentally shifted.
If teens were doing well, this might be fine. But they are not: Clinical-level depression, self-harm behavior (such as cutting), the number of suicide attempts and the suicide rate
for teens all rose sharply after 2010, when smartphones became common
and the iPad was introduced. Teens who spend excessive amounts of time
online are more likely to be sleep deprived, unhappy and depressed. Nor
are the effects small: For example, teens who spent five or more hours a
day using electronic devices were 66 percent more likely
than those who spent just one hour to have at least one risk factor for
suicide, such as depression or a previous suicide attempt.
Guardian | When I am well, I am happy and popular. It is tough to type these
words when I feel none of it. And sometimes when I am most well I am…
boring. Boring is how I want to be all of the time. This is what I have
been working towards, for 12 years now.
When friends decades older tell me off for saying that I am old, at
28, what I mean is: I haven’t achieved all the things I could have done
without this illness. I should have written a book by now. I should have
done so many things! All the time, I feel I am playing catch-up.
Always. I worry, and most of the literature tells me, that I will have
this problem for life. That it will go on, after the hashtags and the
documentaries and the book deals and Princes Harry and William – while the NHS circles closer to the drain.
Maybe it’s cute now, in my 20s. But it won’t be cute later, when I am
older and wearing tracksuits from 20 years ago and not in an ironic
hipster way but because I no longer wash or engage with the world, and
it’s like: my God, did you not get yourself together already?
When I left appointments and saw the long-term patients, walking
around in hospital-issue pyjamas, dead-eyed (the kind of image of the
mentally ill that has become anathema to refer to as part of the
conversation, but which in some cases is accurate), four emotions rushed
in: empathy, sympathy, recognition, terror. It’s one of those things
you can’t really talk about with authenticity unless you’ve seen it, not
really: the aurora borealis, Prince playing live and the inpatient
wards.
Maybe my prognosis will look up, maybe I’ll leave it all behind. I’ve
noticed a recent thing is for people to declare themselves “proud” of
their mental illness. I guess I don’t understand this. It does not
define me.
It’s not something that, when stable, I feel ashamed of, or that I
hide. But I am not proud of it. I’d rather I didn’t have it – so I
wasn’t exhausted, so I wasn’t bitter about it – despite the fact that I
know some people, in all parts of the world, are infinitely worse off.
I want it gone, so that I am not dealing with it all the time, or
worrying about others having to deal with it all the time. So I don’t
have to read another article, or poster, about how I just need to ask
for help. So that when a campaigner on Twitter says, “To anyone feeling
ashamed of being depressed: there is nothing to be ashamed of. It’s
illness. Like asthma or measles”, I don’t have to grit my teeth and say,
actually, I am not OK, and mental illness couldn’t be less like
measles. So that when someone else moans about being bored with everyone
talking about mental health, and a different campaigner replies,
“People with mental illness aren’t bored with it!” I don’t have to say,
no, I am: I am bored with this Conversation. Because more than talking
about it, I want to get better. I want to live.
quantamagazine | The question most of genetics tries to answer is how genes connect to
the traits we see. One person has red hair, another blonde hair; one
dies at age 30 of Huntington’s disease, another lives to celebrate a
102nd birthday. Knowing what in the vast expanse of the genetic code is
behind traits can fuel better treatments and information about future
risks and illuminate how biology and evolution work. For some traits,
the connection to certain genes is clear: Mutations of a single gene are
behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another
are behind cystic fibrosis.
But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions
are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to
your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact,
they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in
some way, an idea formalized in a theory put forward last year.
Starting about 15 years ago, geneticists began to collect DNA from
thousands of people who shared traits, to look for clues to each trait’s
cause in commonalities between their genomes, a kind of analysis called
a genome-wide association study (GWAS). What they found, first, was that you need an enormous number of people to get statistically significant results — one recent GWAS
seeking correlations between genetics and insomnia, for instance,
included more than a million people.
Second, in study after study, even
the most significant genetic connections turned out to have surprisingly
small effects. The conclusion, sometimes called the polygenic
hypothesis, was that multiple loci, or positions in the genome, were
likely to be involved in every trait, with each contributing just a
small part. (A single large gene can contain several loci, each
representing a distinct part of the DNA where mutations make a
detectable difference.)
How many loci that “multiple” description might mean was not defined
precisely. One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that
“a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to
autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out.
Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this
context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford
colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell
that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people
nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits.
Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the
cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not
100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors
suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than
100,000.
theatlantic | But
chimeras are not just oddities. You surely know one. In pregnant women,
fetal stem cells can cross the placenta to enter the mother’s
bloodstream, where they may persist for years. If Mom gets pregnant
again, the stem cells of her firstborn, still circulating in her blood,
can cross the placenta in the other direction, commingling with those of
the younger sibling. Heredity can thus flow “upstream,” from child to
parent—and then over and down to future siblings.
The
genome, Zimmer goes on to reveal, eludes tidy boundaries too. Forget
the notion that your genome is just the DNA in your chromosomes. We have
another genome, small but vital, in our cells’ mitochondria—the tiny
powerhouses that supply energy to the cell. Though the mitochondrial
genes are few, damage to them can lead to disorders of the brain,
muscles, internal organs, sensory systems, and more. At fertilization,
an embryo receives both chromosomes and mitochondria from the egg, and
only chromosomes from the sperm. Mitochondrial heredity thus flows
strictly through the maternal line; every boy is an evolutionary dead
end, as far as mitochondria are concerned.
Beyond the genome are
more surprises. Schoolchildren learn that Darwin’s predecessor, the
great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, got heredity wrong when he suggested that traits acquired through
experience—like the giraffe’s neck, elongated by straining and
stretching to reach higher, perhaps tenderer, leaves—could be passed
down. The biologist August Weismann famously gave the lie to such
theories, which collectively are known as “soft” heredity. If Lamarckism
were true, he said, chopping the tail off mice and breeding them,
generation after generation, should eventually produce tailless mice. It
didn’t. Lamarck wasn’t lurking in the details.
Recent
research, however, is giving Lamarck a measure of redemption. A subtle
regulatory system has been shown to silence or mute the effects of genes
without changing the DNA itself. Environmental stresses such as heat,
salt, toxins, and infection can trigger so-called epigenetic responses,
turning genes on and off to stimulate or restrict growth, initiate
immune reactions, and much more. These alterations in gene activity,
which are reversible, can be passed down to offspring. They are
hitchhikers on the chromosomes, riding along for a while, but able to
hop on and off. Harnessing epigenetics, some speculate, could enable us
to create Lamarckian crops, which would adapt to a disease in one or two
generations and then pass the acquired resistance down to their
offspring. If the disease left the area, so would the resistance.
All
of these heredities—chromosomal, mitochondrial, epigenetic—still don’t
add up to your entire you. Not even close. Every one of us carries a
unique flora of hundreds if not thousands of microbes, each with its own
genome, without which we cannot feel healthy—cannot be “us.” These too
can be passed down from parent to child—but may also move from child to
adult, child to child, stranger to stranger. Always a willing volunteer,
Zimmer allowed a researcher to sample the microbes living in his
belly-button lint. Zimmer’s “navelome” included 53 species of bacteria.
One microbe had been known, until then, only from the Mariana Trench.
“You, my friend,” the scientist said, “are a wonderland.” Indeed, we all
are.
With this in mind,
reconsider the ongoing effort to engineer heredity. The motto of the
Second International Eugenics Congress, in 1921, was “Eugenics is the
self-direction of human evolution.” Since then, controlling heredity has
become technically much easier and philosophically more complicated.
When, in the 1970s, the first genetic engineering made medical gene
therapy feasible, many of its pioneers urged caution, lest some
government try to create a genetic Fourth Reich. In particular, two
taboos seemed commonsense: no enhancement, only therapy (thou shalt not
create a master race); and no alterations in germ-line tissues, only in
somatic cells (thou shalt not make heritable modifications).
Breitbart | Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Party’s rising socialist
star, describes herself as “a girl from the Bronx” to project a
working-class image. However, this claim is only half true – to borrow a
phrase from the left-wing website PolitiFact.
“Well, you know, the president is from Queens, and with all due
respect — half of my district is from Queens — I don’t think he knows
how to deal with a girl from the Bronx,” Ocasio-Cortez said this week on
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
She similarly told the Washington Post:
“I wasn’t born to a wealthy or powerful family — mother from Puerto
Rico, dad from the South Bronx. I was born in a place where your Zip
code determines your destiny.”
The congressional candidate, who pulled off an upset win
against high-ranking establishment Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), was indeed
born in New York City’s Bronx borough. She currently lives there, too.
So what’s the issue? For most of her formative years, Ocasio-Cortez
was actually raised in one of the United States’ wealthiest counties.
Around the age of five, Alexandria’s architect father Sergio Ocasio
moved the family from the “planned community” of Parkchester in the
Bronx to a home in Yorktown Heights, a wealthy suburb in Westchester
County. The New York Timesdescribes her childhood home as “a modest two-bedroom house on a quiet street.” In a 1999 profile of the area, when Ocasio-Cortez would have been ten years old, the Times lauded Yorktown Heights’ “diversity of housing in a scenic setting” – complete with two golf courses.
The paper quoted Linda Cooper, the town supervisor, describing
Yorktown as ”a folksy area where people can come, kick off their shoes,
wander around, sit in a cafe, listen to a concert in the park, or go to
the theater.”
consortiumnews |Conventional
wisdom said that powerful Congressman Joseph Crowley couldn’t be beat.
But his 20-year career in the House of Representatives will end in
January, with the socialist organizer who beat him in the Democratic
primary in the deep-blue district of the Bronx and Queens poised to
become Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
In a
symbolic twist of fate, the stunning defeat of Crowley came a day before
the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic Party voted on what to
do about “superdelegates,” those unelected Democratic Party elite
who’ve had an undemocratic and automatic vote in presidential
nominations since 1984 to prevent leftwing candidates from being
nominated.
Crowley’s
defeat shows how grass-roots movements can prevail against corporate
power and its pile of cash. The Crowley campaign spent upward of $3
million in the Democratic Party primary. The Ocasio-Cortez campaign
spent one-tenth of that. He wielded the money. She inspired the people.
As the
28-year-old Ocasio-Cortez was quick to say after her Tuesday night
victory, her triumph belongs to everyone who wants social, economic and
racial justice. She ran on a platform
in harmony with her activism as a member of Democratic Socialists of
America and an organizer for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign.
Conventional wisdom said superdelegates—who exerted undemocratic power
over the selection of the party’s presidential nominee in 2016—couldn’t
be stopped from once again putting the establishment’s thumbs on the
scale.
But on
Wednesday afternoon, the party committee approved a proposal to prevent
superdelegates from voting on the presidential nominee during the first
ballot at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. (The last time the
party’s convention went to a second ballot was 1952.)
As NPR reported,
the committee “voted to drastically curtail the role ‘superdelegates’
play in the party’s presidential nominating process. The DNC’s Rules and
Bylaws Committee voted 27 to 1 to block officeholders, DNC members and
other party dignitaries from casting decisive votes on the first ballot
of presidential nominating conventions.”
Make no
mistake: Those in the top echelons of the Democratic Party aren’t moving
in this direction out of the goodness of their hearts. Grass-roots
pressure to democratize the party—mounting since 2016—is starting to pay
off.
KansasCity | "I’m glad my clients can finally put this nightmare behind them,"
Hinrichs said. "The last few years have been really difficult. This
(settlement) has provided them some closure."
The suit named E.I.E. LLC, the
company doing business as Whiskey Tango, as a defendant. It also named
five men who worked there or continue to work there: Shawn Brown, the
owner of E.I.E.; Harley Jon Wayne Akin, a manager of security overseeing
the bouncers; Michael Anthony Malick, a bouncer; Cody Reese Atchley, a
bouncer; and Fredrick R. Failing, a bouncer.
Four of the men have pleaded guilty to criminal charges or face trial: Akin, Atchley, Malick and Failing. Brown was not charged.
The country bar, at 401 S. Outer
Road, hosts poker, beer pong and flip cup tournaments, according to its
website. It has a mechanical bull. Blake Shelton made an appearance there a few months before the women were wrongly imprisoned.
The website advertises the bar as the best nightclub in Kansas City and a top spot to meet people.
Around midnight on the night of the incident, the
sisters were at a restaurant in a different city when an unknown woman
bought a Bud Light with the counterfeit bill, the suit says.
About 90 minutes later, the sisters arrived at the bar with their cousins.
Around 3 a.m., shortly before the bar's closing time, a man
approached Mariel and accused her of using the fake bill. She adamantly
denied the accusation, the suit says.
As the sisters left, multiple
bouncers wearing skull or camouflage masks pursued them into the parking
lot and "restricted them from leaving," the suit and criminal records
say.
Back in the bar, Akin accused
Mariel of using the fake bill. Audrey grabbed Akin by the front of his
shirt and told her sister to run, according to criminal records.
Mariel fled, dashing into the woods toward a gas station about a half-mile away.
Security supervisors Justin Wilson and Akin told Atchley, Malick and Failing to "pursue her," the suit says.
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article213899559.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article213899559.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article213899559.html#storylink=cpy
eand | Predatory
capitalism has long fuelled the American economy — the middle class
hollowed out to make the rich richer. But they don’t have any money,
savings, or income left to give. And yet the only thing that American
economy was built to do was prey. So whom will it prey on now?
Do
you see the problem? The machine was built to generate “growth” by
taking things from people — their money, their time, their imagination,
their courage, their empathy — and in return jacking up the price of the
basics of life, healthcare, education, finance, to astronomical prices.
Not exactly a fair trade to begin with. But
people now have nothing left to give. They have been bled dry. So what
happens now? What will the machine consume to keep itself going?
Well,
whom can it prey on now? Maybe more camps will have to be built, and
more kids put in them, and each one made a profit center. Maybe all
those private prisons will have to be filled up with dissidents. Maybe
all those tech companies will start reporting you as dangerous. Maybe
all those TV shows you watch will be used to make a profile of whether
or not you are a good citizen. It’s not a coincidence they built
concentration camps in old Walmarts — it’s a perfect metaphor for an
implosive economy.
The point is this. Profits
have to propped up, by more and more violent and coercive means,
because America’s economy isn’t really capable of producing much that is
real or valuable anymore. Nobody in the world really wants to
buy what America has to sell — guns, Facebook ads, and greed, to put
simply. But America’s own broken middle class doesn’t have anything left
to give now. So the ways that such a predatory economy can “grow” are
few now: by imprisoning people for profit, by abusing them for profit,
by expropriating their wealth, or by putting them to work. What are
those ways, in particular?
So the third thing “implosion” implies is a violent, spectacular process.
When a society is collapsing, it is run by plutocrats. But when a
society is imploding, it is run by mafias and warlords. That is
basically where America is, though maybe it wouldn’t like to admit it.
What other kinds of people smile as kids are shot in schools? Mafias and
warlords exact their tribute. It doesn’t matter who pays, or whether
payment is made in gold, silver, or bodies — it only matters that the
mafias are paid.
That is why
predation is now taking on a very different tone now. It is going from
the hidden, soft predation of crap jobs and raiding pension funds and
shifting debt from bailed out hedge funds onto students — to something
harder, something more lethal, whose teeth and claws are finally being
revealed. So implosion means, in this second sense, that predatory
institutions are ready to use hard force, real violence, to accomplish
their means. They are ready to consume everything that is left now, with
very real abuse and systematic human rights violations. Hence, the
camps.
But
the camps are just a beginning. For an economy which has no good way
left to grow, which makes mostly nothing the world wants, and whose
people are too poor to buy what the world makes, the endgame is clear.Such
an economy is going to have start resorting to more and more
spectacularly violent means of repression and subjugation, to alleviate
fast-spreading poverty. So today’s camps, as terrible as they are, are only a starting point, not an end point.
NYTimes | It
wasn’t long ago that the term “middle class” suggested security,
conformity and often complacency — a cohort that was such a reliable
feature of postwar American life that it attracted not just political
pandering but also cultural ridicule. The stereotype included everyone
from men in gray flannel suits to the slick professionals of
“Thirtysomething,” stuck or smug in their world of bourgeois comforts.
“Squeezed:
Why Our Families Can’t Afford America,” a timely new book by the
journalist and poet Alissa Quart, arrives at a moment when members of
the middle class are no longer a robust demographic but an embattled and
shrinking population, struggling to hold on to their delicate perch
in an unforgiving economic order. These aren’t the truly poor but those
in the “just-making-it group,” or what Quart also calls “the Middle
Precariat.” The people she talks to believed their educations and
backgrounds (most of them grew up in middle-class homes) would guarantee
some financial stability; instead, their work is “inconstant or
contingent,” and their incomes are stagnant or worse.
“They
are people on the brink who did everything ‘right,’” Quart writes, “and
yet the math of their family lives is simply not adding up.”
Quart
describes her own experience of slipping into the “falling middle-class
vortex” after the birth of her daughter seven years ago, a time when
she and her husband were freelance writers facing new child care costs
and hospital bills. She eventually became the executive editor of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project,
a nonprofit organization founded by the journalist Barbara Ehrenreich,
but her family had a “few years of fiscal vertigo.” Quart includes
herself in the group she’s writing about; her book succeeds and suffers
accordingly.
As
she puts it in her introduction, the concerns of her subjects “were not
abstract to me.” Quart is a sympathetic listener, getting people to
reveal not just the tenuousness of their economic situations but also
the turbulence of their emotional lives. A chapter on middle-age
job-seekers who once worked as computer programmers or newspaper
reporters captures the fallout of a discriminatory job market, which
tells older unemployed people they should buck up and start over while
also making them feel superfluous.
“I’ve
tried to reinvent myself so many times,” an
aeronautical-engineer-turned-website-designer-turned-personal-chef tells
her. “To be honest, it hasn’t worked.” The woman is now in her 50s,
with two grown daughters and plenty of debt from culinary school. “The
world has evolved beyond me,” she says.
prospect |During the last two decades, policing has become synonymous with surveillance:
the intense scrutiny of persons in public spaces. Poverty and the
symptoms of drug addiction signify criminality to the police in ways
similar to race. This surveillance targets the most vulnerable people in
American society: people of color and poor whites. L. experienced a
form of social oppression well known to people of color, targeted
because their presence is considered a threat to others, because of
their appearance, race, or presence in certain public spaces.
Mass incarceration in the U.S., is largely thought of as a problem
for black and brown communities. But this characterization risks masking
the pervasive injustice that befalls others who live in and around
those communities. The threat of surveillance has fallen
disproportionately on African Americans and Latinos for decades. But
during the era of mass incarceration, surveillance has increasingly
become further disconnected from any legitimate suspicion of criminal
behavior.
The new approach makes surveillance seem like a primary
responsibility of government. But this purported governmental
“responsibility” (which does not appear in the Constitution) is rapidly
overtaking the right to be free from surveillance, a protection that the
Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees.
We live in a country where the poor are often presumed guilty, since
they have failed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. This
“failure” has profound consequences. As Barton Gellman and Sam
Adler-Bell, a senior fellow and senior policy advocate at the Century
Foundation, noted in the 2017 Century Foundation report, “The Disparate Impact of Surveillance,”
the gaze of the state is “heaviest in communities already disadvantaged
by their poverty, race, religion, ethnicity, and immigration status.”
WaPo | The Trump administration says the United Nations is
overestimating the number of Americans in “extreme poverty” by about
18.25 million people, reflecting a stark disagreement about the extent
of poverty in the nation and the resources needed to fight it.
In May, Philip G. Alston, special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights for the U.N., published a report saying 40 million Americans live in poverty and 18.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty.
But in a rebuke to that report on Friday, U.S. officials told the United Nations Human Rights Council there only appear to be approximately 250,000 Americans in extreme poverty, calling Alston's numbers “exaggerated.”
The
rift highlights a long-running debate among academics over the most
accurate way to describe poverty in America, one with enormous
implications for U.S. policy-making and the nation's social safety net.
It also sheds light on the ongoing feud between Trump and U.N. officials
over Alston's report on American poverty, with U.S. Ambassador Nikki
Haley last week calling the report “politically motivated” and arguing it “is patently ridiculous for the U.N. to examine poverty in America.”
But who is right about the number of Americans in extreme poverty?
It depends on how you define it.
The
U.N.'s numbers come from the official Census definition that has been
kept for decades by the U.S. government, defining extreme poverty as
having an income lower than half the official poverty rate, Alston said
in an interview. (For 2016, that was about $12,000 a year for a family
of four.) By this criteria, the poverty rate in America has only
slightly ticked downward since the mid-1960s.
vogue | But Ocasio-Cortez’s challenge goes far beyond surface level;
Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a
leftist organization that has helped buoy the campaigns of dozens of
outsider candidates running on very progressive platforms in places
where Democrats like Crowley are used to winning—handily. Some of
Ocasio-Cortez’s positions include fighting for Medicare for All and a federal jobs guarantee,
abolishing ICE, and insisting on much more severe policing of luxury
real estate development (part of the reason she has refused corporate
donations). Her push on economic justice has exposed ways that Crowley,
as a powerful Democrat who sits on the House Committee on Ways and
Means, pays lip service to the post–Donald Trump resistance while
maintaining largely centrist politics. Newcomers like Ocasio-Cortez and Cynthia Nixon,
who is hoping to unseat Governor Andrew Cuomo (Nixon and Ocasio-Cortez
have endorsed each other), have already helped spur a leftward shift in
some of the stances of their opponents.
Ocasio-Cortez spoke to Vogue on the phone last week before heading to a child detention center in Tornillo, Texas. Trump’s family separation policy
has been a flash point not just along partisan lines, but also between
Democrats: those who denounce ICE’s action but refuse to call for its
dismantling, like Crowley, and those who believe it should not exist.
It’s an issue that has also created a debate around “civility,” as pundits squabble over whether or not Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, for example, should have been heckled out of a Mexican restaurant last week.
As the people’s millennial challenger, Ocasio-Cortez weighed in on what
needs to change in New York, in elections, and in how we talk about
holding those in power accountable.
truthdig | The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a
half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of
political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed
democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a
functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him
are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next
election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not
Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the
mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count.
We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state,
and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age.
The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism,
is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party
steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the
election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb
and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half
the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not
defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare
for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is
disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and
costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties,
including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance,
and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money
out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a
prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the
United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to
the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address
substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow
cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our
peculiar species of anti-politics.
This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The
leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom
Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic
political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate
money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They
would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of
privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the
Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the
last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of
despotism.
Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American
public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them.
He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly
ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts
directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites
resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have
become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political
landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective
are at least cathartic.
downwithtyranny | How cynical is the Democratic Party's support for identity politics? To
this observer, it seems impossible not to notice that those in control
of the Democratic Party care about "identity politics" — about
supporting more women, more people of color, more LGBTQ candidates, etc.
— only when it suits them. Which means, if you take this view, that
their vocal support for the underlying principles of "identity politics"
is both cynical and insincere.
As I said, this has been apparent for some time. I've never seen it documented so well in one place, however, until this recent piece by Glenn Greenwald.
The Past as Prologue: Cynthia Nixon
Apparently, however, Democratic Party interest in electing strong progressive women (Hillary Clinton includes herself
on that list) has dissipated in the smoke of the last election. As
Greenwald notes, "Over and over, establishment Democrats and key party
structures have united behind straight, white male candidates (including
ones tainted by corruption), working to defeat their credible and
progressive Democratic opponents who are women, LGBT people, and/or
people of color. Clinton herself has led the way."
The article is replete with examples, from the Brad Ashford–Kara Eastman
battle in Nebraska, to the Bob Menendez–Michael Starr Hopkins–Lisa
McCormick three-way contest in New Jersey, to the Ben Cardin–Chelsea
Manning primary in Maryland. In all cases, the Party backed the white
male candidate (or in Menendez's case, the whiter male candidate)
against the woman, the person of color, and the LGBTQ candidate. Not
even the smoke of 2016's identity fire remains.
The Ocasio-Crowley Battle Is a Very High-Leverage Fight
A second point: I recently wrote about the importance of progressives
involving themselves heavily in high-leverage races — like the Bernie
Sanders 2016 race, for example — where the payoff would have been huge
relative to the effort. (You can read that piece and its argument here: "Supporting Aggressive Progressives for Very High-Leverage Offices".)
The Ocasio-Crowley contest is similarly high-leverage — first, because he's perceived as vulnerable and acting like he agrees,
and second because it would, to use a chess metaphor, eliminate one of
the most powerful (and corrupt) anti-progressive players from House
leadership in a single move.
Again, Crowley is widely seen as the next Democratic Speaker of the
House. He would be worse by far than Nancy Pelosi, and he's dangerous.
He has blackmailed, as I see it, almost all of his colleagues into
supporting him by the implicit threat of, as Speaker, denying them
committee assignments and delaying or thwarting their legislation. He
also controls funding as Speaker via the leadership PAC and the DCCC.
Even Mark Pocan, co-chair of the CPC and normally a reliable progressive
voice and vote, is reportedly whipping support for Crowley among his
colleagues.
Crowley plays for keeps. Taking him off the board entirely, removing him
from the House for the next two years, would produce a benefit to
progressives far in excess of the effort involved.
DailyCaller | California Rep. Maxine Waters burst into tears Monday on MSNBC as she
used “the children” to deflect away from the harassment comments she
made over the weekend.
“I did not call for harm for anybody. The president lied again,” Waters said.
She then turned to “the children.”
“But let’s not talk about
that. Let’s focus on the children. That’s what this is all about. It is
about the fact that children have been snatched from their parents’
arms,” Waters said, moving away from the controversy over her comments.
Waters then burst into tears after being confronted with the fact that major Democrats are denouncing her harassment claims.
“They
don’t really say I’m out of line. What they do is try to find a way
talk about civility without attacking me or anybody else as the leader
of the Democratic Party, I expect that she would do everything that she
could to make sure nobody believes that Democrats are out here harassing
anybody or causing any violence,” Waters said of House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi, who denounced Waters’ harassment comments Monday.
Waters
made comments over the weekend about getting out and pushing back on
people with differing political ideologies, saying, “If you see anybody
from that cabinet in a restaurant, in department store, at a gasoline
station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them.
Tell them they’re not welcome any more, anywhere!”
WashingtonTimes | President Trump slammed Rep. Maxine Waters on Monday afternoon, after
her speech calling for supporters to heckle members of the Trump
administration went viral over the weekend.
Congresswoman
Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together
with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called
for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America
Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!
Mr.
Trump and Ms. Waters have crossed each other several times. The
president has called Ms. Waters “a low IQ individual” at a rally for
Rick Saccone in March 2018, and she has repeatedly called for his
impeachment.
Ms. Waters told her supporters to “push out” members of the Trump administration from public spaces.
“If
you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department
store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you
push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore,
anywhere,” Ms. Waters said Saturday during a rally in Los Angeles.
Maxine
Waters calls for attacks on Trump administration: “If you see anybody
from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline
station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them,
and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” pic.twitter.com/jMV7wk48wM
— Ryan Saavedra 🇺🇸 (@RealSaavedra) June 24, 2018
Fellow
California lawmakers House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have both denounced Ms. Waters’ statement.
Independent | American citizens now own 40 per cent of all guns
in the world - more than the next 25 top-ranked gun ownership countries
combined - with the number only set to grow, according to new research.
According to a decade-long survey released by the Graduate
Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, not only
do Americans own the highest number of guns per capita, but also between
2006 and 2017, US gun owners acquired some 122 million new guns.
That represented more than half of the 207 million new civilian-owned
firearms around the world during that time.
“The biggest force pushing up gun ownership around the world
is civilian ownership in the United States,” said Aaron Karp, one of the
authors of the report.
Kunstler | It’s one thing to ignore the economically foundering, traditional
working-class constituency of actual US citizens who are having a
tougher time every year making a living; it’s another thing to bring in a
several-millionfold population of non-citizens to replace them.
Anyway, it’s a pretty poor strategy for success in the coming
mid-term election. The effort got a boost over the weekend from
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Cal) who called for Trump administration
employees to be thrown out of department stores and other retail
establishments as well as restaurants. Why stop there? Why not enslave
Trump employees and supporters? Force them to work without pay in the
Chick-Fil-A regional distribution warehouses? One wonders what House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi thinks of Ms. Waters’ proposal. Other
Democratic party leaders zipped their pie-holes about it.
The trouble is that the entities waiting to replace both the useless,
careless, feckless Democrats and Republicans are chaos and violence, not
reconstituted parties with coherent political programs. The US, and
really all the so-called advanced nations on earth, are heading into an
era of scarcity and austerity that is likely to present as mortal
conflict.
wikipedia | The economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States
is challenging to measure and politically contentious. Since it is a
challenging field to quantify, it leaves room for varying methodologies
of study, and so the definitive results of the economic impact can
change[1]
One possibility is that foreign workers entering the country
illegally can lower wages and increase overall costs of production. This
comes from the theory that when there are more illegal immigrants in
the country, there will be more immigrants looking for employment
because most illegal immigrants prefer to work.[2]
This increases competition among low-skilled local workers, and this
will push wages for the domestic low-skilled labor market down.
Simultaneously the increased supply in unskilled illegal migrants can
offset technological developments and "reduce the country's economy's
competitiveness in the international market".[3]
The opposing theory is that even though this can happen in some areas
with more low-skilled employment, on the net illegal immigration
increases the welfare of domestic workers because their additional
consumption outweighs the costs of welfare.[4]
Along the same lines it is argued that illegal immigrants work for
lower wages, then domestic residents recognize these profits and can
choose to either spend or save this new revenue,[5]
so the net outcome can be decided by the net of these two economic
forces. Studies have shown that overall in the long run illegal
immigration benefits the country in terms of its general production, but
introducing many people in the labor market can lead to income
distribution that can tend towards domestic workers and immigrant
workers on other occasions. The net short-term impacts of some aspects
of illegal immigration can be inconclusive.[6] Though this net effect changes, the number of immigrants crossing the border illegally is less unclear.
There were approximately 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants in the
U.S. in 2016, roughly unchanged from the prior year but well below the
12.2 million peak in 2007. There were an estimated 8 million
unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. civilian workforce in 2016, roughly
5%.[7] The Congressional Budget Office
reported in 2007 that "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants
generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of
services provided to them" but "in aggregate and over the long term,
tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and
unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."[8] Unauthorized immigrants demand goods and services[9] while an estimated 50 to 75 percent pay taxes.[10]
Due to cheaper labor, they contribute to lower prices in the industries
where they work, such as agriculture, restaurants, and construction.[9]
WaPo | OVER THE WEEKEND there was a fair bit of argument about the decision by a small restaurant in Lexington, Va., not to serve dinner
to President Trump’s press secretary. It wasn’t the first time recently
that strong political feelings have spilled into what used to be
considered the private sphere. We understand the strength of the
feelings, but we don’t think the spilling is a healthy development.
Sarah
Huckabee Sanders was dining with a few other people at the Red Hen in
Lexington Friday night. Several of the restaurant’s staff are gay and
objected to Ms. Sanders’s defense of Mr. Trump’s discriminatory policies
against transgender people. The staff also objected to the
administration’s recent actions leading to the separation of thousands of children from their parents
at the U.S.-Mexico border. Respecting her staff’s wishes, the
restaurant owner politely asked Ms. Sanders to leave, and Ms. Sanders
politely acceded. She then tweeted about the episode, turning it into a public controversy.
This followed by a few days the very public heckling of two architects of that border policy, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, at Washington restaurants. Last month a Nebraska sociology professor was found guilty of vandalism for spraying false blood at the home of a National Rifle Association lobbyist in Alexandria.
It’s
not a new tactic for protesters of one sort or another to target a
public official’s home or private life. But never-at-rest social media
have blurred the line between work hours and private time. Cellphone
cameras make it ever easier to intrude and broadcast.
thehill | Rep. Maxine Waters
(D-Calif.) on Saturday called on her supporters at a rally to confront
Trump Cabinet officials in public spaces like restaurants and department
stores to protest the administration's policies.
"I have no
sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it is
wrong what they're doing on so many fronts but they tend to not want to
confront this president," Waters said at a Los Angeles rally on Saturday.
"For
these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him they're
not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they're not going to be able
to stop at a gas station, they're not going to be able to shop at a
department store, the people are going to turn on them, they're going to
protest, they're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that
they're going to tell the president 'no I can't hang with you, this is
wrong this is unconscionable and we can't keep doing this to children,'"
she continued.
Waters' call comes as the Trump administration faces
major backlash over the handling of its "zero tolerance" immigration
policy, which has resulted in the separation of immigrant families.
Protesters confronted Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C., last week, yelling “shame” at Nielsen and “End Texas concentration camps.”
Demonstrators in a separate incident on Friday blasted audio of crying migrant children who had been separated from their parents outside Nielsen's home.
White
House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has also faced public
backlash for her work in the administration, recently being told by one
of the owners of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Va., to leave due
to her role in the administration.
“I’m not a huge fan of confrontation,” co-owner Stephanie Wilkinson told
The Washington Post. “I have a business, and I want the business to
thrive. This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to
make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.”
archive | As ICE
continues to ramp up its inhumane surveillance and detention efforts, I
believe it’s important to document what’s happening, and by whom, in any
way we can.
To that end, I’ve downloaded and made available
the profiles of (almost) everyone on LinkedIn who works for ICE, 1595
people in total. While I don’t have a precise idea of what should be
done with this data set, I leave it here with the hope that researchers,
journalists and activists will find it useful.
'
You can find the full data set, including profile photos, previous employment info, schools, and more, on this GitHub repository.
Details of each user are located in the “profiles” folder as .json
files, each containing whatever information ICE workers have chosen to
make publicly available about themselves on LinkedIn.
I find
it helpful to remember that as much as internet companies use data to
spy on and exploit their users, we can at times reverse the story, and
leverage those very same online platforms as a means to investigate or
even undermine entrenched power structures. It’s a strange side effect
of our reliance on private companies and semi-public platforms to
mediate nearly all aspects of our lives. We don’t necessarily need to
wait for the next Snowden-style revelation to scrutinize the
powerful — so much is already hiding in plain sight.
Of
course, ICE has a presence on many online platforms besides LinkedIn,
each are worth investigating. For example, they publish b-roll and
propaganda videos on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, videos which I’ve previously explored in an attempt to provide a birds-eye view of how the institution positions itself in the public narrative.
thesaker |The Saker: Now, turning to your books on Rabbinical
Phariseism, could you please summarize the main theses of your books on
this topic? What is, in your opinion, the true nature of Rabbinical
Phariseism, what are its core tenets/beliefs? What would you say to an
average person are the myths and realities about what is referred to as
“Judaism” in our society?
Hoffman: Orthodox Judaism, which is the scion of the
religion of the ancient Pharisees, is above all, self-worship, and
pride is the paramount destroyer. In the occult scheme of things, the
ideology closest to it was Hitler’s National Socialism, in that it
shares this predominant characteristic of pathological narcissism.
Christians and many other goyim (gentiles) have been deluded
into imagining that Judaism, while being somewhat flawed due to
rejecting Jesus, nonetheless manages to be an ethical religion
reflective of the prophets of the Old Testament. Hillel, the first
century A.D. Pharisee who is believed to have been a contemporary of
Jesus, and Moses Maimonides (“Rambam”), the medieval philosopher and
theologian, are most often held up as exemplars of this supposed ethical
Judaism.
The myth of the benevolence of these two can only be sustained by
ignorance. The problem is, that when a scholar begins to unearth facts
that undermine pious media legends about men like Hillel and Maimonides,
they enter “anti-Semitism” territory: if they dare to retail the truth,
their ability to earn a living and keep their good name and reputation
will be damaged, sometimes irreparably by the myth-makers who have the
power to permanently stigmatize them as “haters and anti-Semites.”
I’m beyond those fears, so I can venture to say that Hillel offered
theological grounds for the molestation of children and invented a “prozbul”
escape clause for evading the Biblical command that no loan shall be in
force more than seven years. Maimonides detested Jesus Christ with a
volcanic hatred that led him in his writings to urge the murder of
Christians when it is possible to do so without being detected. These
facts are documented in my books Judaism Discovered and Judaism’s Strange Gods.
Meanwhile, if you google “Hillel” or “Maimonides,” or you consult
Wikipedia, you’ll find them described in terms of saccharine sainthood
and humanitarian benevolence.
Orthodox Judaism, I regret to say, is a religion of lying and deceit.
Duplicity and mendacity are formally inculcated. They are not
incidental. There isn’t even a great deal of trust among Talmudists
themselves. Witness what Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, one time head of the
reconstituted Sanhedrin in Tiberias, and premier translator of the
Babylonian Talmud, has pronounced on this matter: “Rabbis are liable to
alter their words, and the accuracy of their statements is not to be
relied upon.” (The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition [Random
House], Vol. II, pp. 48-49). In BT Yevamot 65b permission is given to
lie “in the interests of peace,” a category so broad it is capable of
serving as an alibi for countless situations in which scoundrels wish to
conjure excuses for their falsehoods. There is also the general
permission to lie to a gentile (BT Baba Kamma 113a).
These facts are not published in major media such as the New York Times. Yet the Times
does not shy from insinuating that Shiite Islam is a religion of liars:
“…there is a precedent for lying to protect the Shiite community…part
of a Shiite historical concept called taqiyya, or religious dissembling.” (New York Times, April 14, 2012, p. A4).
Another defining theological aspect of Orthodox Judaism is its dogma that non-Jews are less than human. This is how the goyim
are viewed in the Talmud and its sacred successor texts. In certain
branches of Kabbalistic Judaism, such as the politically powerful and
prominent Chabad-Lubavitch sect, their founder, Rabbi Shneur Zalman,
formally promulgated the doctrine that goyim are not just less than human, they are non-human trash — “supernal refuse” — which is a reference to their Kabbalistic status as kelipot who possess “no redeeming qualities whatsoever.”
The Saker: My personal research has brought me to
the conclusion ever since the recognition by Christ as the Messiah
promised by the prophets of the Old Testament by one part of the first
century Jews and the rejection of Him by the other part, the latter
group began by developing an “anti-Christian scriptural toolkit” which
included, of course, the forgery of the so-called Masoretic text, the
development of the Talmud and the various commentaries, interpretations
and codification of these texts. The goal was to develop a “polemical
arsenal” so to speak. At the same time, the first kabbalistic concepts
were developed for the internal use inside
the anti-Christian communities. Would you agree with this (admittedly
summarized) description and would you then agree with my personal
conclusion that Rabbinical Phariseeism is at its core simply a religion
of “anti-Christianity”?
Hoffman: I think you’re correct up to the
Renaissance, which is the point at which members of the Roman Catholic
hierarchy including many popes, were secretly initiated into Kabbalistic
mysticism. The belt of that transmission is chronicled in detail in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.
Rabbinic Phariseeism is more than a religion opposed to Jesus for this
reason: in its beginnings in the time before Christ, it had existence as
a creed founded upon esoteric oral teachings that nullify the Bible
itself.
Orthodox Judaism is an anti-Biblical religion. Yes, it has a “Moses”
and a “Noah” as its patrons and it names other patriarchs too, but these
are not the Moses and Noah of the Bible. These are radically falsified
figures who bear those names. Pharisac Judaism is contemptuous of the
Biblical Noah about whom, in the Midrash, it makes scurrilous
claims. There is even contempt for Moses. About Isaiah, who said that
Israel has filthy lips, the Talmud teaches that Isaiah was justly killed
by having his mouth sawed in half for “blaspheming Israel.”
In both Left-wing New Age and Right-wing neo-Nazi circles, the heresy
of Marcion is alive and well and the Old Testament is execrated. It is
equated with the Talmud (most famously on the Right by Douglas Reed in The Controversy of Zion).
The problem with that tack is that the Old Testament is absolutely not a
book of self-worship of the Jews. It is radically different from the
Babylonian Talmud. The Bible is an antidote to self-worship. The Old
Testament excoriates Israelites in the strongest possible terms.
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Quickie
-
Hi folks,
At this stage my blogger entries feel like I'm talking on a barbwire
network over a party line, like on Green Acres. I haven't put out a signal
...
Pocahontas, Magawisca, and Religion
-
Disney’s Pocahontas (1995) and Catharine Maria Sedgwick’s Hope Leslie
(1827) both present stories based on Pocahontas mythology, the former
directly with i...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...