30 October 19
Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page
Moore writes: "I love Bernie Sanders. And in my primary, that is whom I'm enthusiastically voting for as my choice for President of the United States."
here comes a time when you have to say you can no longer wait for the America that has been promised to you since you were a child. That you will no longer be told to be patient, or that you should wait just a little longer until the stubborn change their ways. There comes a time when you are no longer interested in seeking a “middle ground” on issues like health care or climate change — as if there even is a middle ground on whether to save the planet or to save yourself from a health care system that makes you go only half bankrupt — and so finally you just have to say “ENOUGH!” The days of compromise are OVER. We must stop being afraid to demand what we need right now. We need to stop running to the middle where we think it’s “safe” (when even a 10-year knows it’s never safe to stand in the middle of the road). Friends! Stop wringing your hands with such fear! I know it’s been a rough three years, but the only way to beat Trump (if in fact there still is a Trump next year) is for all of us to be bold and brave and brazen in these next 12 months. The time has come when your only job in this dark and dangerous moment is to be your true self, to vote your conscience, to vote for YOUR vision of the country you want to live in — because you may never get this chance again. Our side blew it in 2016 — we can’t afford to let that happen again.
We are blessed in this election year with an incredible field of Democratic candidates who can lead us out of the madness and into a better world. All of the polls now show the top five or six Democrats can and will beat Donald Trump in a head-to-head race — and if that’s the case, then you can and should vote for the candidate who most closely resembles your beliefs and not play some unnecessary game of Stratego. Kamala can win! Buttigieg can win! Biden can win! Warren can win! Bernie can win! So if that’s the case, and we agree that we’re ALL voting in the general election next November for whoever the Democratic nominee is, then please, use the primary election/caucus in your state to vote for that one candidate who most speaks to you — and I’ll vote for the one who most speaks to me. Let’s each, finally, stop compromising for someone we don’t really want and, instead, vote for the one you love.
I love Bernie Sanders. And in my primary, that is whom I’m enthusiastically voting for as my choice for President of the United States.
Here is why I’m for Bernie:
1. Only Bernie completely understands and clearly states what is the singular reason causing so many of our social ills: A cruel economic system, which is, at its very core, brutally unfair, profoundly unjust and not at all democratic. There is no democracy when it comes to our economic system — you and I simply have no say in how this economy is run. Until we end the greed that allows just 3 men to own more wealth than 160 million Americans COMBINED, then we will be spinning our wheels forever and dooming millions of our fellow citizens to permanent poverty, woefully inadequate health care, crushing student debt and a life of struggling to live from paycheck to paycheck — the middle class an elusive dream that exists only in the distance of your rearview mirror.
Bernie knows it doesn’t have to be this way. He knows that this is no longer about a debate between “capitalism” and “socialism.” In fact, let’s be honest: capitalism is no longer “capitalism.“ It has become a modern-day feudal system where a few billionaires buy and own the politicians and the government so they can rule over and profit from the 330 million of us. Bernie proposes a different way: a modern-day true Democracy — he calls it democratic socialism — which means we must have both political AND economic democracy. A democracy wherein the people control the economy and decide how the money should be spent. It’s a belief system that says everyone gets a seat at the table, everyone shares and gets a slice of the pie. Yes, of course I know Oprah and Anderson Cooper will get a larger slice of pie — but NOT at the expense of the 60 million who get no slice at all. In Bernie’s democracy, no one is left behind. “The last shall be first and the first shall be last.” That’s what Bernie believes in. Whenever you hear the words “Democratic socialism” it’s just a clunky way of saying Social Security. Or Medicare. Or the GI Bill. The public library (books you can read for free!). Public schools. The animal shelter. The mailwoman. The garbage man. Services your government provides for you at little or no charge and where profit is not the motive. Those in the top 0.1% who want the pie all to themselves — well, trust me, they are dreading the day the words “President Sanders” will be spoken.
2. Bernie will never sell out. He simply can’t be bought. That gruff exterior of his? That’s his armor to let the enemy know he is in the thick of the battle, that he will stand firm and stop them from stealing our future. That’s why young voters are behind Bernie — he’s the brave, wise elder who’s fighting NOT for himself but for them — and you. He’s had 78 years to cash in, to get the big yacht and the gold-plated mansion, and yet he’s never broken faith with his conscience or the people. And everybody knows he’s not about to start now. Can’t we please have the occupant of the Oval Office in there doing OUR bidding and not that of the corporate elites?
3. Here’s what I can promise you Bernie will do as President:
- With a Democratic Congress which he will embolden as Franklin Roosevelt once did, Bernie will sign legislation that gets us the same health care every other industrialized nation has — where everyone lives longer lives than Americans do and no one loses their home due to medical bills which will no longer exist!
- Bernie will get the minimum wage raised to at least $15 an hour (or more) and lift millions out of poverty. A good job with a decent middle class income (with a strong safety net for the old, the young and the challenged) is the goal in an economic democracy you and I run.
- Bernie will begin an all-out battle to protect this planet and save its species from extinction.
- Bernie will see to it that women are paid the same as men and that no man or legislature or court will have any say over a woman’s reproductive rights.
- Bernie will fight racism in every sick corner in which it exists. He will lead a more diverse United States which thrives because of our multitude of cultures — an America which welcomes immigrants, shares its wealth, makes amends for its sins, seeks peace instead of war, and guarantees no African-American is shot for being black.
4. For over 50 years Bernie has fought for all these things — all of which were vigorously opposed at one time or another by the majority of the American people. But over time, Americans were convinced by activists like Bernie to see things a different way — and now they finally do. That’s what a leader does — she or he is able to convince the masses to try a different, better path. Decades ago they said Bernie was crazy to believe women should be paid the same as men, that anyone should be able to marry the person they’re in love with, that those who destroy the environment should be stopped and brought to justice, that the rich aren’t being taxed enough, that unions are a good thing and on and on and on. These are now, according to nearly every poll, the positions that a MAJORITY of Americans take! And they are now the positions which all of the Democratic presidential candidates take! Bernie is the OG! He and others led us here. And now we get the chance to have him lead this country further down the road to more compassion, decency and love.
Get behind the candidate who ignites some passion in you. If you so decide, please join me in supporting Bernie. Bernie will crush Trump (should Trump make it to the ballot). And when Bernie enters the Oval Office, on that day in January of 2021, we the people will all enter the Oval Office with him.
— Michael Moore
READ MORE
John Bolton, then national security adviser, was reportedly alarmed by two White House meetings with Ukrainian officials on July 10. (photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Greg Miller, The Washington Post
Miller writes: "The Ukrainian officials arrived at the White House on July 10 hoping to cement their country's relationship with the United States, solidifying support the Trump administration seemed reluctant to extend for reasons they didn't fully understand."
Instead, they walked into a White House that was on the verge of a crisis over Ukraine, as a simmering conflict between the president’s political impulses and the nation’s security priorities was about to erupt in the West Wing.
In a pair of volatile meetings, senior White House officials, including then-national security adviser John Bolton, were confronted with the outlines of a scheme they had previously only suspected: President Trump was seeking to use the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to deliver damaging information on former vice president Joe Biden and his son.
One of the officials Trump had entrusted to pursue this agenda, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, was undeterred by the fierce opposition from Bolton and others. He persisted in pressing Ukraine to commit to Trump’s demands, convening a second meeting even after a spectacular blowup in the West Wing.
All of this played out before the confused officials from Ukraine, who came seeking to strengthen their standing with Trump and ended up witnessing events that are now at the heart of the House impeachment inquiry.
Details of the July 10 sequence, which Bolton likened to an illicit “drug deal,” have emerged from witnesses’ testimony before House lawmakers over the past several weeks.
“The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner,” Vindman said, according to a copy of his opening statement released to the public.
But after seeing Sondland outline political demands that Trump would reiterate in his July 25 call, Vindman said, he became worried that what he had witnessed was improper, imperiled Ukraine’s ability to withstand Russian aggression and “would all undermine U.S. national security.”
The July 10 meetings have become a focal point for congressional investigators in part because Sondland articulated a seeming quid pro quo — a Zelensky visit to the White House in exchange for investigations beneficial to Trump — before a room full of witnesses, providing evidence that elements within the administration were working to pressure Ukraine well before the Trump-Zelensky call.
The reactions of Bolton, Vindman and others also underscore the extent to which even those who worked in the White House were deeply disturbed by conduct that triggered an extraordinary whistleblower complaint against the president and set in motion the impeachment inquiry.
The West Wing meetings on July 10 increasingly appear to mark the moment of detonation of the Ukraine crisis inside the White House, though by then Bolton, Vindman, then-White House Russia adviser Fiona Hill and others had become suspicious that Trump was pursuing a secret agenda.
Among the early troubling signs were the abrupt removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch; public statements by Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, making clear that he was pushing Ukraine to revive investigations that would hurt Democrats; and the refusal of Sondland and others to coordinate their interactions with Ukraine with regional experts at the White House and the State Department.
At the same time, officials in Kyiv were struggling to decipher conflicting signals from the Trump administration after Zelensky’s victory in the May election. Acting U.S. ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. sought to reassure the incoming Ukrainian government that it had the full support of the United States, while Sondland and others, including the special adviser on Ukraine, Kurt Volker, were putting murky conditions on the relationship.
In a conversation with Taylor and Sondland, Volker said he planned to use a July 2 meeting in Toronto with Zelensky to tell Ukraine’s president that “Trump wanted to see rule of law, transparency, but also, specifically, cooperation on investigations to ‘get to the bottom of things,’ ” Taylor said in his testimony this month.
The latter phrase appears to refer to Trump’s desire to have Ukraine pursue investigations that would help him politically, including by lending legitimacy to conspiratorial claims Trump has embraced that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and has hidden evidence that would implicate Kyiv.
It was against this backdrop that two of Zelensky’s senior advisers arrived at the White House on July 10: Andriy Yermak, who frequently engaged with Sondland and other U.S. diplomats; and Oleksandr Danyliuk, the head of Ukraine’s national security and defense council.
The two were ushered into a meeting in Bolton’s office in the West Wing along with Sondland, Volker, Hill, Vindman and others, according to witness accounts. The American team was working through standard U.S.-Ukraine talking points, including the United States’ desire to see Kyiv crack down on corruption, when officials familiar with the meeting say Sondland went off script.
Sondland turned the conversation away from ongoing corruption probes to reviving specific investigations that were important to Trump, according to testimony from Hill and Vindman. Although the remark was cryptic, they understood Sondland to be reflecting Trump’s desire to see Ukraine train its investigative resources on an energy company, Burisma, that had hired Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, to serve as a board member for about five years.
Bolton was so alarmed by the exchange that he ended the meeting abruptly and ordered those gathered out of his office, officials said. As the group filed out, Sondland instructed the Ukrainians to follow him to the Ward Room, a space in the basement of the West Wing used for meetings by national security officials.
After huddling briefly with Hill, Bolton instructed her to follow the group downstairs and monitor Sondland. There are conflicting accounts of what happened as the smaller group reconvened.
Sondland has testified that he didn’t know of any Biden connection in Trump’s demands for a Burisma investigation until much later, after the allegations in the whistleblower complaint became known. He has also said that no White House officials ever expressed any concern to him about his efforts to push Ukraine to commit to the Burisma probe. His lawyer declined to comment Tuesday after the release of Vindman’s opening statement.
Sondland’s account is contradicted by statements from Hill and Vindman. Hill testified that she entered the Ward Room as the follow-up meeting was already underway and heard Sondland say the word “Burisma” as he resumed pressing the Ukrainians to pursue certain investigations. She then ordered that meeting to an immediate close.
Vindman said that Sondland used the downstairs meeting to press for “investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma.” Vindman said he then confronted Sondland, saying that “his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the [National Security Council] was going to get involved in or push.”
Hill then returned upstairs to relay what she had witnessed to Bolton, who exploded, saying, “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, had met with Sondland on several occasions to discuss Ukraine.
Bolton directed Hill to report what she had witnessed to John Eisenberg, the top lawyer for the National Security Council. Hill spoke briefly with Eisenberg on July 10, but because the attorney was pressed for time they did not finish their discussion until the next day. Hill was accompanied by Wells Griffith, an NSC official responsible for energy policy who is also being sought as a witness by House investigators.
Vindman said that after the Ward Room meeting, he “reported my concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel.”
Despite the heated reactions by Bolton and others to the July 10 meetings, it is not clear whether he, Eisenberg or others took significant steps afterward to intervene and prevent the campaign to pressure Ukraine from proceeding.
Eight days later, at Trump’s direction, Mulvaney ordered the Office of Management and Budget to place a hold on $391 million in security aid to Ukraine meant to help the country fend off Russian aggression.
A week after the aid was held up, Trump spoke with Zelensky by phone, emphasizing U.S. generosity toward Ukraine, complaining about a lack of reciprocation and issuing his request for “a favor though.” Trump proceeded to push Ukraine to investigate Biden, Burisma and the 2016 conspiracy claims he had embraced.
Hill left the White House on July 19, and while she conveyed her concerns about Ukraine to Taylor and others before leaving, she was not in a position to monitor the July 25 call.
Bolton’s actions regarding Ukraine after the July 10 meetings are not clear. Despite his supposed fury about the scheme to pressure Ukraine, Bolton instructed Hill to speak with lawyers rather than doing so himself. It is not clear whether he fought to prevent the aid from being disrupted. And he did not participate in the Trump-Zelensky call.
Because of his high rank and direct involvement in the events surrounding Ukraine, Bolton is regarded as a key witness by impeachment investigators, but he has not yet agreed to testify.
READ MORE
Dr. Gael Manganga checks on bats in nets as part of medical research in Franceville, Gabon. (photo: Steve Jordan/Getty)
Kelsey Piper, Vox
Excerpt: "Predict, a pandemic preparedness program, thrived under Bush and Obama. Now it's canceled."
EXCERPT:
Ever since the 2005 H5N1 bird flu scare, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has run a project to track and research these diseases, called Predict. At a cost of $207 million during its existence, the program has collected more than 100,000 samples and found nearly 1,000 novel viruses, including a new Ebola virus.
But on Friday, the New York Times reported that the US government is shutting down the program. According to its former director Dennis Carroll, the program enjoyed enthusiastic support under Bush and Obama, but “things got complicated” in the last few years until the program “essentially collapsed.”
Some aspects of the program — it’s unclear which — will be continued under different auspices in other departments of the government. But the core program — working with local researchers around the world to collect samples and better understand viruses in animals — is over.
That’s a shame, and it’s indicative of a bigger problem. While pandemics make the news when they happen, efforts to understand, predict, and prevent them are underfunded. The US government has several agencies that do work on pandemic preparedness, but experts say that much more leadership in the area is needed.
Former President Barack Obama. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty)
While speaking at an Obama Foundation event in Chicago on Tuesday, the former president sounded off over what he perceives to be a desire among young people to prove how “woke” they are by judging others online. “This idea of purity and that you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke — you should get over that quickly,” Obama said, to laughs. “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids, and share certain things with you.”
He continued to tie the issue to activism:
“I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media — there is this sense sometimes of the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people, and that’s enough. If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself. Did you see how woke I was, I called you out. Then I’m going to get on my TV and watch my show … That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.”
Sendy Soto gathers resources for asylum seekers at the organization's storage unit near the Chicago Greyhound bus station. (photo: In These Times)
An Iranian couple visit a pharmacy. (photo: AFP)
Human Rights Report: US Sanctions Threaten Iranians' HealthcareteleSURExcerpt: "Despite exemptions for imports of humanitarian goods, the United States' sanctions against Iran are threatening Iranians' access to foreign-made drugs and medical equipment to treat severe diseases such as cancer and epilepsy, a report from Human Rights Watch revealed Tuesday."READ MORE
A group of people stand near the coast in Mumbai, India. (photo: Getty)
EXCERPTS:
Coastal vulnerability is well assessed in the United States, where high-resolution data is widely available. The new findings confirm earlier work by Climate Central showing that U.S. vulnerability will increase this century as sea level continues to rise. NOAA estimates that the national average of five high-tide flood days per year – about twice as much as 20 years ago – might reach 7 to 15 days by 2030 and 25 to 75 days by 2050, with the largest increases along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.
The study finds that roughly 190 million people currently occupy global land that could be inundated by regular high tides (mean higher high water) by 2100, even if greenhouse gas emissions peak by midcentury. This compares to an estimate of 110 million people from a widely used NASA model.
Under the same scenario, less-frequent annual flooding could affect much more territory as soon as 2050, including land where some 237 million people live today within six Asian countries (China, Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand). This compares to earlier estimates of only about 50 million people.
If emissions keep rising through the century, regular high-tide flooding could occur by 2100 on coastal land where 250 million people now live in those six countries.
Even if greenhouse emissions are cut drastically, more than 20 other nations could see regular high tides by 2100 over land where at least 10% of their population is now located, the study finds.
oe Biden may have stumbled into supporting one of the most radical climate proposals of the primary.
