- Where Are The Landmines?
Due to their indiscriminate and devastating effects, the long-lasting threat posed by their presence and the painstaking efforts required to remove them, anti-personnel landmines have rightfully been prohibited by the United Nations since 1997 – a treaty joined by over 150 countries.
Nevertheless, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes, there is still an alarmingly large number of them contaminating countries across the world.
This infographic presents facts and figures from the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, shedding light on the places landmines still threaten life, the countries with the largest stockpiles and the progress being made in the fight to clear the contaminated areas.
You will find more infographics at Statista
- Germany's Über Hypocrisy Over Venezuela
Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
Germany has taken the lead among European Union member states to back Washington’s regime-change agenda for Venezuela. Berlin’s hypocrisy and double-think is quite astounding.
Only a few weeks ago, German politicians and media were up in arms protesting to the Trump administration for interfering in Berlin’s internal affairs. There were even outraged complaints that Washington was seeking “regime change” against Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government.
Those protests were sparked when Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, warned German companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline with Russia that they could be hit with American economic sanctions if they go ahead with the Baltic seabed project.
Earlier, Grenell provoked fury among Berlin’s political establishment when he openly gave his backing to opposition party Alternative for Germany. That led to consternation and denunciations of Washington’s perceived backing for regime change in Berlin. They were public calls for Grenell to be expelled over his apparent breach of diplomatic protocols.
Now, however, Germany is shamelessly kowtowing to an even more outrageous American regime-change plot against Venezuela.
Last week, the government of President Nicolas Maduro ordered the expulsion of German ambassador Daniel Kriener after he greeted the US-backed opposition figure Juan Guaido on a high-profile occasion. Guaido had just returned from a tour of Latin American countries during which he had openly called for the overthrow of the Maduro government. Arguably a legal case could be made for the arrest of Guaido by the Venezuelan authorities on charges of sedition.
When Guaido returned to Venezuela on March 4 he was greeted at the airport by several foreign diplomats. Among the receiving dignitaries was Germany’s envoy Daniel Kriener.
The opposition figure had declared himself “interim president” of Venezuela on January 23 and was immediately recognized by Washington and several European Union states. The EU has so far not issued an official endorsement of Guaido over incumbent President Maduro. Italy’s objection blocked the EU from adopting a unanimous position.
Nevertheless, as the strongest economy in the 28-member bloc, Germany can be seen as de facto leader of the EU. Its position on Venezuela therefore gives virtual EU gravitas to the geopolitical maneuvering led by Washington towards the South American country.
What’s more, the explicit backing of Juan Guaido by Germany’s envoy was carried out on the “express order” of Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, according to Deutsche Welle.
“It was my express wish and request that Ambassador Kriener turn out with representatives of other European nations and Latin American ones to meet acting President Guaido at the airport,” said Maas.
“We had information that he was supposed to be arrested there. I believe that the presence of various ambassadors helped prevent such an arrest.”
It’s staggering to comprehend the double-think involved here.
Guaido was hardly known among the vast majority of Venezuelans until he catapulted on to the global stage by declaring himself “interim president”. That move was clearly executed in a concerted plan with the Trump White House. European governments and Western media have complacently adopted the White House line that Guaido is the legitimate leader while socialist President Maduro is a “usurper”.
That is in spite of the fact that Maduro was re-elected last year in free and fair elections by a huge majority of votes. Guaido’s rightwing, pro-business party boycotted the elections. Yet he is anointed by Washington, Berlin and some 50 other states as the legitimate leader.
Russia, China, Turkey, Cuba and most other members of the United Nations have refused to adopt Washington’s decree of recognizing Guaido. Those nations (comprising 75 per cent of the UN assembly) continue to recognize President Maduro as the sovereign authority. Indeed, Russia has been highly critical of Washington’s blatant interference for regime change in oil-rich Venezuela. Moscow has warned it will not tolerate US military intervention.
Russia’s envoy to the UN Vasily Nebenzia, at a Security Council session last month, excoriated the US for its gross violation of international law with regard to Venezuela. Moscow’s diplomat also directed a sharp rebuke at other nations “complicit” in Washington’s aggression, saying that one day “you will be next” for similar American subversion in their own affairs.
Germany’s hypocrisy and double-think is, to paraphrase that country’s national anthem, “über alles” (above all else).
German politicians, diplomats and media were apoplectic in their anger at perceived interference by the US ambassador in Berlin’s internal affairs. Yet the German political establishment has no qualms whatsoever about ganging up – only weeks later – with Washington to subvert the politics and constitution of Venezuela.
How can Germany be so utterly über servile to Washington and the latter’s brazen criminal aggression towards Venezuela?
It seems obvious that Berlin is trying to ingratiate itself with the Trump administration. But what for?
Trump has been pillorying Germany with allegations of “unfair trade” practices. In particular, Washington is recently stepping up its threats to slap punitive tariffs on German auto exports. Given that this is a key sector in the German export-driven economy, it may be gleaned that Berlin is keen to appease Trump. By backing his aggression towards Venezuela?
Perhaps this policy of appeasement is also motivated by Berlin’s concern to spare the Nord Stream 2 project from American sanctions. When NS2 is completed later this year, it is reckoned to double the capacity of natural gas consumption by Germany from Russia. That will be crucial for Germany’s economic growth.
Another factor is possible blackmail of Berlin by Washington. Recall the earth-shattering revelations made by American whistleblower Edward Snowden a few years back when he disclosed that US intelligence agencies were tapping the personal phone communications of Chancellor Merkel and other senior Berlin politicians. Recall, too, how the German state remarkably acquiesced over what should have been seen as a devastating infringement by Washington.
The weird lack of action by Berlin over that huge violation of its sovereignty by the Americans makes one wonder if the US spies uncovered a treasure trove of blackmail material on German politicians.
Berlin’s pathetic kowtowing to Washington’s interference in Venezuela begs an ulterior explanation. No self-respecting government could be so hypocritical and duplicitous.
Whatever Berlin may calculate to gain from its unscrupulous bending over for Washington, one thing seems clear, as Russian envoy Nebenzia warned: “One day you are next” for American hegemonic shafting.
- Putin Now Thinks Western Elites Are "Swine"
Authored by Dmitry Orlov via Russia Insider,
An article I published close to five years ago, “Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over”, turned out to be the most popular thing I’ve written so far, having garnered over 200,000 reads over the intervening years. In it I wrote about Putin’s speech at the 2014 Valdai Club conference. In that speech he defined the new rules by which Russia conducts its foreign policy: out in the open, in full public view, as a sovereign nation among other sovereign nations, asserting its national interests and demanding to be treated as an equal. Yet again, Western elites failed to listen to him.
Instead of mutually beneficial cooperation they continued to speak the language of empty accusations and counterproductive yet toothless sanctions.
And so, in last month’s address to Russia’s National Assembly Putin sounded note of complete and utter disdain and contempt for his “Western partners,” as he has usually called them. This time he called them “swine.”
The president’s annual address to the National Assembly is a rather big deal. Russia’s National Assembly is quite unlike that of, say, Venezuela, which really just consists of some obscure nonentity named Juan recording Youtube videos in his apartment. In Russia, the gathering is a who’s-who of Russian politics, including cabinet ministers, Kremlin staffers, the parliament (State Duma), regional governors, business leaders and political experts, along with a huge crowd of journalists. One thing that stood out at this year’s address was the very high level of tension in the hall: the atmosphere seemed charged with electricity.
It quickly became obvious why the upper echelon of Russia’s state bureaucracy was nervous: Putin’s speech was part marching orders part harangue. His plans for the next couple of years are extremely ambitious, as he himself admitted. The plank is set very high, he said, and those who are not up to the challenge have no business going near it. Very hard work lies ahead for almost everyone who was gathered in that hall, and those of them who fail at their tasks are unlikely to be in attendance the next time around because their careers will have ended in disgrace.
The address contained almost no bad news and quite a lot of very good news. Russia’s financial reserves are more than sufficient to cover its entire external debt, both public and private. Non-energy-resource exports are booming to such an extent that Russia no longer needs oil and gas exports to maintain a positive balance of trade. It has become largely immune to Western sanctions. Eurasian integration projects are going extremely well. Russian government’s investments in industry are paying dividends.
The government has amassed vast amounts of capital which it will now spend on domestic programs designed to benefit the people, to help Russians live longer, healthier lives and have more children. “More children—lower taxes” was one of the catchier slogans.
This was what most of the address was about: eradication of remaining poverty; low, subsidized mortgage rates for families with two or more children; pensions indexed to inflation above and beyond the official minimal income levels (corrected and paid out retroactively); high-speed internet for each and every school; universal access to health care through a network of rural clinics; several new world-class oncology clinics; support for tech start-ups; a “social contract” program that helps people start small businesses; another program called “ticket to the future” that allows sixth-graders to choose a career path that includes directed study programs, mentorships and apprenticeships; lots of new infrastructure projects such as the soon-to-be-opened Autobahn between Moscow and St. Petersburg, revamped trash collection and recycling and major air pollution reductions in a dozen major cities; the list goes on and on.
No opposition to these proposals worth mentioning was voiced in any of the commentary that followed on news programs and talk shows; after all, who could possibly be against spending amassed capital on projects that help the population?
Perhaps the most ambitious goal set by Putin was to redo the entire system of Russia’s government regulations, both federal and regional, in every sphere of public life and commerce. Over the next two years every bit of regulation will be examined in order to determine whether it is necessary and whether it responds to contemporary needs and if it isn’t or doesn’t it will be eliminated. This will significantly ease the burden of regulatory compliance, lowering the cost of doing business.
Another goal was to continue growing the already booming agricultural export sector. Last year Russia achieved self-sufficiency in wheat seed stock, but the overall goal is to achieve complete self-sufficiency in food and to become the world’s provider of ecologically clean foodstuffs. (As Putin pointed out, Russia remains the only major agricultural producer in the world that hasn’t been contaminated by American-made GMO poisons.) Yet another goal is to further grow Russia’s tourism industry, which is already booming, by introducing electronic tourist visas that will be much easier to obtain.
Last year’s address surprised the world with its second part, in which Putin unveiled a whole set of new Russian weapons systems that effectively negate every last bit of US military superiority. This year, he added just one new system: a supersonic cruise missile called “Zirkon” with a 1000 km range that flies at Mach 9. But he also provided a progress report on all the others: everything is going according to plan; some new armaments have already been delivered, others are going into mass production, the rest are being tested. He spoke in favor of normalized relations with the EU, but accused the US of “hostility,” adding that Russia does not threaten anyone and is not interested in confrontation.
Putin’s sharpest words were reserved for the US decision to abandon the INF treaty. He said that the US acted in bad faith, accusing Russia of violating the treaty while they themselves violated it, specifically articles 5 and 6, by deploying dual-use launch systems in Romania and Poland which can be used for both air defense and for offensive nuclear weapons which the treaty specifically prohibits. Nuclear-tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles, which the US could deploy in Poland and Romania, would of course pose a risk, but would not provide the US with anything like a first-strike advantage, since these cruise missiles are obsolete to the point where even Syria’s Soviet-era air defenses were able to shoot down most of the ones the US lobbed at them as punishment for the fake chemical weapons attack in Douma.
Speaking of the American dream of a global air defense system, Putin called on the US to “abandon these illusions.” The Americans can think whatever they want, he said, but the question is, “can they do math?” This needs unfolding.
First, the Americans can think whatever they want because… they are Americans. Russians do not allow themselves the luxury of thinking complete and utter nonsense. Those who are not grounded in fact and logic tend to get the Russian term “likbez” thrown in their faces rather promptly. It literally decodes as “liquidation of illiteracy” and is generally used to shut down ignoramuses. But in the US shocking displays of ignorance are quite acceptable. For an example, you need to look no further than the astonishingly idiotic “Green New Deal” being touted by the freshman congresstwit (how’s that for a gender-neutral appellation?) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If she were Russian she’d have been laughed right out of town by now.
“But can they do math?” Apparently not! There is another Russian term—“matchast”—which literally decodes as “material part” but stands for the understanding that can only be achieved through the knowledge of mathematics, the hard sciences and engineering. In Russia, ignoramuses like Ocasio-Cortez, who think that transportation needs can be provided by electric vehicles powered by wind and solar, get shut down by being told to go and study “matchast” while in the US they are allowed to run wild in the halls of congress.
In this case, if Americans could “do math,” they would quickly figure out that there is no conceivable defensive system that would be effective against the new Russian weapons, that there are no conceivable offensive weapons that would prevent Russia from launching an unstoppable retaliatory strike, and that therefore the “new arms race” (which some Americans have been daft enough to announce) is effectively over and Russia has won. See above: Russia is not spending its money on weapons; it is spending it on helping its people. The US can squander arbitrary amounts of money on weapons but this won’t make an iota of difference: an attack on Russia will be the last thing it ever does.
Russia does not plan to be the first to violate the ABM treaty, but if the US deploys intermediate-range nuclear weapons against Russia, then Russia will respond in kind, by targeting not just the territories from which it is threatened but the locations where the decisions to threaten it are taken. Washington, Brussels and other NATO capitals would, clearly, be on that list. This shouldn’t be news; Russia has already announced that in the next war, should there be one, will not be fought on Russian soil. Russia plans to take the fight to the enemy immediately. Of course, there won’t be a war—provided the Americans are sane enough to realize that attacking Russia is functionally equivalent to blowing themselves up with nuclear weapons. Are they sane enough? That is the question that is holding the world hostage.
It is in speaking of them that Putin used the most withering word in his entire address. Speaking of Americans’ dishonesty and bad faith in accusing Russia of violating the ABM treaty while it was they themselves who were violating it, he added: “…and the American satellites oink along with them.” It is rather difficult to come up with an adequate translation for the Russian verb “подхрюкивать”; “oink along with” is as close as I am able to get. The mental image is of a chorus of little pigs accompanying a big swine. The implication is obvious: Putin thinks that the Americans are swine, and that their NATO satellites are swine too.
Therefore, they shouldn’t expect Putin to scatter any pearls before them and, in any case, he’ll be too busy helping Russians live better lives to pay any attention to them.
- Making America's Kids Smarter – It's So Easy
Participation trophies for all has now escalated from the sports arena to public education…
NC lawmakers consider bill that would change school grades
A new bill under consideration would adjust the current grading scale, making a score of 85 an A and a score of 70 a B.
RALEIGH, N.C. – The North Carolina General Assembly is considering a bill that would adjust the grading scale used to grade state public schools.
House Bill 145, which promotes a 15-point grading scale, passed its first reading in the House on Monday and has been referred to the Committee on Education K-12.
The proposed bill would mean higher grades for lower scores by changing the grading scale as follows:
-
A: 100 to 85 percent
-
B: 84 to 70 percent
-
C: 69 to 55 percent
-
D: 54 to 40 percent
-
F: Anything below 40 percent
The old scale was a 10 point scale, meaning students would need to score a 90 for an A, 80 for a B, etc. If passed, the new grading scale would go into effect for the 2019-20 school year.
* * *
Every school and student deserves an A, right? It’s their right! It’s racist otherwise.
-
- Venezuela Blackout: Cyber-Attacks, Sabotage, & 'Mighty' Cuban Intelligence
During the past few days, Venezuela was suffering a major blackout that left the country in darkness. The crisis started on March 7 with a failure at the Guri hydroelectric power plant, which produces 80% of the country’s power. Additionally, an explosion was reported at Sidor Substation in Bolivar state.
Since then, the government has been struggling to solve the crisis with varying success.
President Nicholas Maduro says that the blackout is the reason of “the electric war announced and directed by American imperialism.”
According to Maduro, electrical systems were targeted by cyberattacks and “infiltrators”. He added that authorities managed to restore power to “many parts” of the country on March 8, but the restored systems were knocked down after the country’s grid was once again attacked. He noted that “one of the sources of generation that was working perfectly” had been sabotaged and accused “infiltrators of attacking the electric company from the inside.”
Communication and information minister Jorge Rodriguez described the situation as “the most brutal attack on the Venezuelan people in 200 years”. He also described the situation as the “deliberate sabotage” on behalf of the US-backed opposition.
In own turn, the US continues to reject claims accusing it of attempts to destabilize the situation in the country. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo even claimed that Washington and its allies would not hurt the “ordinary Venezuelans.” According to him, what’s hurting the people is the “Maduro regime’s incompetence.”
“No food. No medicine. Now, no power. Next, no Maduro,” Pompeo wrote in Twitter, adding that “Maduro’s policies bring nothing but darkness.” Unfortunately, the top diplomat did not explain how wide-scale economic sanctions imposed to wreck the country’s economic should help the “ordinary Venezuelans”.
The State Department attitude was expectedly supported by US-proclaimed Venezuelan Interim President Juan Guaido, who recently returned to country after an attempt to get more foreign support for US-backed regime change efforts. Guaido accused the “Maduro Regime” of turning the blackout during the night in a “horror movie” with his “gangs” terrorizing people.
Another narrative, which recently set the mainstream media on fire, is the alleged Cuban meddling in the crisis.
According to this very version of the event, “forces of democracy” were not able to overthrow the Venezuelan government because its political elite is controlled by Cuban intelligence services. President Donald Trump even said Maduro is nothing more than a “Cuban puppet.”
Taking account already existing allegations about the presence of Hezbollah and Russian mercenaries in Venezuela and an expected second attempt to stage US aid delivery provocation on the Colombian-Venezuelan border, it becomes clear that chances of US direct action to bring into power own political puppet are once again growing.
The February attempt to stage a provocation failed and make a final step toward a regime change by force failed after it was publicly revealed that the US-backed opposition was intentionally burning “aid trucks” to blame the Maduro government. Furthermore, the military backed Maduro, and the scale and intensity of protests across the country were not enough to paralyze the government.
The blackout in Venezuela was likely meant to bring the country into disorder and draw off army and security forces. Therefore, an attempt to stage a new provocation to justify a foreign intervention to overthrow the Venezuelan government could be expected anytime soon.
- US Navy’s Stealth Destroyer Departs From San Diego On First Operational Cruise
U.S.S. Zumwalt (DDG-1000), a 16,000-ton next generation guided-missile destroyer, left its San Diego homeport for its first “operational period at sea,” the U.S. Navy said in a March 8 statement.
The Navy said the milestone demonstrates the service’s commitment to advancing the lethality of stealth warships through cutting-edge technologies in combat systems, weapons, and engineering plant.
“Zumwalt is designed for stealth,” said Capt. Andrew Carlson, the ship’s commanding officer.
“This aids her role as a multi-mission surface combatant and improves the fleet commander’s options for delivery of naval combat power to meet the Navy’s emergent mission requirements.”
The ship was commissioned in October 2016. Following the commissioning, the Zumwalt was stationed in San Diego where advanced weapon systems were installed. According to the statement, the ship’s crew completed a post-delivery maintenance examination of the destroyer’s electronic, powerplant, and weapons systems before the departure.
“My crew has been looking forward to continued testing and operations at sea, leveraging the newly installed capabilities of this platform,” said Carlson. “Our primary focus is executing a safe underway, while building both competence and confidence in operating Zumwalt across the spectrum of naval warfare.”
U.S. Indo-Pacific Command snapped an image of the newly-commissioned
@ZUMWALT_DDG1000 departing from San Diego late last week.The Zumwalt is about 100 feet longer and 13 feet wider than the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, is powered by two Rolls-Royce turbine generators capable of producing 78 megawatts (105,000 hp), and also has enough power to fire electrically-powered weapons.
Armed with 80 missiles in vertical launch tubes within the hull and two 155-caliber cannons, the vessel is expected to have directed-energy weapons once the technology matures.
While the Navy provided limited details on the vessels next stop, CTV Vancouver Island said the ship is scheduled to make a port call to Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt on Vancouver Island later this month.
“While the exact date of the ship’s arrival and duration of its stay remain closely guarded secrets of the U.S. Navy, the ship’s oddly angular design, stealth capabilities and state-of-the-art electric drive system are sure to attract the attention of naval watchers and neophytes alike,” read the report.
- RussiaGate As Organised Distraction
Authored by Prof. Oliver Boyd-Barrett, via Organisation for Propaganda Studies,
For over two years RussiaGate has accounted for a substantial proportion of all mainstream US media political journalism and, because US media have significant agenda-setting propulsion, of global media coverage as well. The timing has been catastrophic.
The Trump Administration has shredded environmental protections, jettisoned nuclear agreements, exacerbated tensions with US rivals, and pandered to the rich.
In place of sustained media attention to the end of the human species from global warming, its even more imminent demise in nuclear warfare, or the further evisceration of democratic discourse in a society riven by historically unprecedented wealth inequalities and unbridled capitalistic greed, corporate media suffocate their publics with a puerile narrative of alleged collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.
The RussiaGate discourse is profoundly mendacious and hypocritical. It presumes that the US is a State whose electoral system enjoys a high degree of public trust and security. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US democratic system is deeply entrenched in a dystopian two-party system dominated by the rich and largely answerable to corporate oligopolies; it is ideologically beholden to the values of extreme capitalism and imperialist domination. Problems with the US electoral system and media are extensive and well documented.
US electoral procedures are profoundly compromised by an electoral college that detaches votes counted from votes that count. The composition of electoral districts have been gerrymandered to minimize the possibility of electoral surprises. Voting is dependent on easily hackable corporate-manufactured electronic voting systems.
Right-wing administrations reach into a tool-box of voter-suppression tactics that run the gamut from minimizing available voting centers and voting machines through to excessive voter identification requirements and the elimination of swathes of the voting lists (e.g. groups such as people who have committed felonies or people whose names are similar to those of felons, or people who have not voted in previous elections).
Even the results of campaigns are corrupted when outgoing regimes abuse their remaining weeks in power to push through regulations or legislation that will scuttle the efforts of their successors.
Democratic theory presupposes the formal equivalence of voice in the battlefield of ideas. Nothing could be further from the reality of the US “democratic” system in which a small number of powerful interests enjoy ear-splitting megaphonic advantage on the basis of often anonymous “dark” money donations filtered through SuperPacs and their ilk, operating outside the confines of (the somewhat more transparently monitored) ten-week electoral campaigns.
Regarding media, democratic theory presupposes a public communications infrastructure that facilities the free and open exchange of ideas. No such infrastructure exists. Mainstream media are owned and controlled by a small number of large, multi-media and multi-industrial conglomerates that lie at the very heart of US oligopoly capitalism and much of whose advertising revenue and content is furnished from other conglomerates.
The inability of mainstream media to sustain an information environment that can encompass histories, perspectives and vocabularies that are free of the shackles of US plutocratic self-regard is also well documented.
Current US media coverage of the US-gestated crisis in Venezuela is a case in point. The much celebrated revolutionary potential of social media is illusory. The principal suppliers of social media architecture are even more corporatized than their legacy predecessors. They depend not just on corporate advertising but on the sale of big data that they pilfer from users and sell to corporate and political propagandists often for non-transparent AI-assisted micro-targeting during ‘persuasion’ campaigns.
Like their legacy counterparts, social media are imbricated within, collaborate with, and are vulnerable to the machinations of the military-industry-surveillance establishment. So-called election meddling across the world has been an outstanding feature of the exploitation of social and legacy media by companies linked to political, defense and intelligence such as – but by no means limited to – the former Cambridge Analytica and its British parent SCL.
Against this backdrop of electoral and media failures, it makes little sense to elevate discussion of and attention to the alleged social media activities of, say, Russia’s Internet Research Agency. Attention is being directed away from substantial, and substantiated, problems and onto trivial, and unsubstantiated, problems.
Moreover, in a climate of manufactured McCarthyite hysteria, RussiaGate further presupposes that any communication between a presidential campaign and Russia is in itself a deplorable thing. Even if one were to confine this conversation only to communication between ruling oligarchs of both the US and Russia, however, the opposite would surely be the case. This is not simply because of the benefits that accrue from a broader understanding of the world, identification of shared interests and opportunities, and their promise for peaceful relations.
A real politik analysis might advise the insertion of wedges between China and Russia so as to head off the perceived threat to the USA of a hybrid big-power control over a region of the world that has long been considered indispensable for truly global hegemony.
Even if we address RussiaGate as a problem worthy of our attention, the evidentiary basis for the major claims is weak. The ultimate unfolding of RussiaGate discourse now awaits the much-anticipated report of Special Counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller. Mueller’s indictments and investigations have to date implicated several individuals for activities that in some cases have no connection whatsoever to the 2016 Presidential campaign. In some other instances they appear to have been more about lies and obstructions to his investigation rather than material illegal acts, or amount to charges that are unlikely ever to be contested in a court of law.
The investigation itself is traceable back to two significant but extremely problematic reports made public in January 2017. One was the “Steele dossier” by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele. This is principally of interest for its largely unsupported allegations that in some sense or another Trump was in cahoots with Russia. Steele’s company, Orbis, was commissioned to write the report by Fusion GPS which in turn was contracted by attorneys working for the Democratic National Campaign.
Passage of earlier drafts of the Steele report through sources close to British intelligence, and accounts by Trump adviser George Papadopoulos concerning conversations he had concerning possible Russian possession of Clinton emails with a character who may as likely have been a British as a Russian spy, were instrumental in stimulating FBI interest in and spying on the Trump campaign.
There are indirect links between Christopher Steele, another former MI6 agent, Pablo Miller (who also worked for Orbis) and Sergei Skripal, a Russian agent who had been recruited as informer to MI6 by Miller and who was the target of an attempted assassination in 2018. This event has occasioned controversial, not to say highly implausible and mischievous British government claims and accusations against Russia.
The most significant matter raised by a second report, issued by the Intelligence Community Assessment and representing the conclusions of a small team picked from the Director of Intelligence office, CIA, FBI and NSA, was its claim that Russian intelligence was responsible for the hacking of the computer systems of the DNC and its chairman John Podesta in summer 2016 and that the hacked documents had been passed to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. No evidence for this was supplied.
Although the hacking allegations have become largely uncontested articles of faith in the RussiaGate discourse they are significantly reliant on the problematic findings of a small private company hired by the DNC. There is also robust evidence that the documents may have been leaked rather than hacked, and by US-based sources.
The fact that the documents revealed that the DNC, a supposedly neutral agent in the primary campaign, had in fact been biased in favor of the candidature of Hillary Clinton, and that Clinton’s private statements to industry were not in keeping with her public positions, has long been obscured in media memory in favor a preferred narrative of Russian villainy.
Why then does the RussiaGate discourse have so much traction? Who benefits?
First, RussiaGate serves the interest of a (1)corrupted Democratic Party, whose biased and arguably incompetent campaign management lost it the 2016 election, in alliance with with (2)powerful factions of the US industrial-military-surveillance establishment that for the past 19 years, through NATO and other malleable international agencies, has sought to undermine Putin’s leadership, dismember Russia and the Russian Federation (undoubtedly for the benefit of western capital) and, more latterly, further contain China in a perpetual and titanic struggle for the heart of EurAsia.
In so far as Trump had indicated (for whatever reasons) in the course of his campaign that he disagreed with at least some aspects of this long-term strategy, he came to be viewed as unreliable by the US security state. While serving the immediate purpose of containing Trump, US accusations of Russian meddling in US elections were farcical in the context of a well-chronicled history of US “meddling” in the elections and politics of nations for over 100 years. This meddling across all hemispheres has included the staging of coups, invasions and occupations on false pretext in addition to numerous instances of “color revolution” strategies involving the financing of opposition parties and provoking uprisings, frequently coupled with economic warfare (sanctions).
A further beneficiary (3)is the sum of all those interests that favor a narrowing of public expression to a framework supportive of neoliberal imperialism. Paradoxically exploiting the moral panic associated with both Trump’s plaintive wailing about “fake news” whenever mainstream media coverage is critical of him, and social media embarrassment over exposure of their big data sales to powerful corporate customers, these interests have called for more regulation of, as well as self-censorship by, social media.
Social media responses increasingly involve more restrictive algorithms and what are often partisan “fact-checkers” (illustrated by Facebook financial support for and dependence on the pro-NATO “think tank,” the Atlantic Council). The net impact has been devastating for many information organizations in the arena of social media whose only “sin” is analysis and opinion that runs counter to elite neoliberal propaganda. The standard justification of such attacks on free expression is to insinuate ties to Russia and/or to terrorism.
Given these heavy handed and censorious responses by powerful actors, it would appear perhaps that the RussiaGate narrative is increasingly implausible to many and the only hope now for its proponents is to stifle questioning. These are dark days indeed for democracy.
- Stormy Daniels & Lawyer Michael Avenatti Sever Ties "For Undisclosed Reasons"
It’s over!!
Michael Avenatti and Stormy Daniels – the porn actress who alleged she had an affair with President Donald Trump – have severed ties.
In the last year, the duo rose to become household names in their fight against Trump, dominating cable news shows for months and taunting the president in interviews.
For posterity, let’s look back at Avenatti and Daniels track-record: (via The Hill)
Avenatti represented Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, in lawsuits that she filed against President Trump and Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney to Trump.
Daniels sued Trump and Cohen to void a nondisclosure agreement stemming from an alleged 2006 affair between Daniels and the president. Daniels was paid ahead of the 2016 election to keep quiet about the affair. A judge threw out the lawsuit this month, ruling that it was irrelevant because she had not been held to the terms of the agreement.
Daniels also filed a defamation suit against both men.
That lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in October.
But the writing was on the wall that clouds were forming over Stormy and Michael’s ‘relationship’:
In November, Daniels told the Daily Beast that Avenatti had filed a defamation case against Trump “against my wishes” and alleged that he refused to give her an accounting of the funds collected by her supporters, would not tell her how the money was spent or how much was left in the crowdsourced legal defense fund.
So Avenatti was 0 for 3 in his representation of Daniels, which is maybe not a total surprise, as AP reports, before Avenatti began representing Daniels in February 2018, he was virtually unknown outside of the California legal community. But in months, he had become known as a no-holds-barred lawyer with a media style parallel to Trump’s. Avenatti had toyed with a 2020 presidential run, but ultimately ruled that out. He’s also been involved in some of America’s biggest cases in the last year, including representing dozens of parents whose children were separated from them at the U.S. border as a result of the Trump administration’s immigration policies. More recently, he’s been representing women who said they were sexually abused by R&B star R. Kelly.
Daniels has not done quite so well, turning her hand to stand-up most recently…
The question is who fired whom? The answer is actually simple:
Stormy Daniels tweeted at 1112am that “I have retained Clark Brewster as my personal lawyer and have asked him and his firm to review all legal matters involving me.”
I have retained Clark Brewster as my personal lawyer and have asked him and his firm to review all legal matters involving me. Upon completion of Mr. Brewster’s review and further consultation with me, I anticipate Mr. Brewster will serve as my primary counsel on all legal issues
— Stormy Daniels (@StormyDaniels) March 12, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And Michael Avenatti quickly responded at 1123am claiming that “on February 19, we informed Stormy Daniels in writing that we were terminating our legal representation of her for various reasons that we cannot disclose publicly due to attorney-client privilege… This was not a decision we made lightly and it came only after lengthy discussion, thought and deliberation, as well as consultation with other professionals,” he added. “We wish Stormy all the best.”
Please see below statement relating to our representation of Stormy Daniels. pic.twitter.com/RgXd4DXf4X
— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) March 12, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So why did Avenatti not – in all his any-publicity-is-great-publicity-and-I-may-still-run-for-President blufftardism – relay his severing ties with Daniels in February?
Bloomberg’s White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs has the answer – straight from the horse’s mouth (as it were): “To an audience of women at The Wing in DC, she says her ex lawyer, Michael Avenatti, pulled the old “you can’t fire me, I quit” trick.“
“Yes,” Stormy Daniels says when asked if she and her new attorney are planning new legal action.
To an audience of women at The Wing in DC, she says her ex lawyer, Michael Avenatti, pulled the old “you can’t fire me, I quit” trick. pic.twitter.com/5TplYzsC0K
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) March 13, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And just like that, 1000s of media types around the world felt a great disturbance in the farce, cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
- How Rent Control Harms Those It Hopes To Help
Authored by Hal Snarr via The Mises Institute,
The State of Oregon is on the precipice of “solving” its housing shortage with state-wide rent control . It would be the first state to do so. The policy is being sold as a way to make housing more affordable in a state where three of its cities, Eugene, Portland, and Salem, are ranked among the forty most expensive housing markets on the planet.
To understand how Oregon’s housing solution will harm those it hopes to help, consider the rental market modeled below. The State is not interfering in the voluntary transactions between landlords and tenants. Supply and demand efficiently allocate 100 rental units at $1500 per month.
The red line represents the demand for rentals. The height of point 1 gives the rent the richest renter is willing to pay ($2500). The height of point 2 gives the rent the poorest renter is willing to pay (under $500). The height of the equilibrium (black point) gives the rent a person of average income is willing to pay ($1500).
The blue line represents the supply of rentals. Since some landlords have mortgages and some do not, some units are in large complexes and some are single units, and some complexes have lots of amenities and some have few, this line represents a queue that sorts rentals from least to most expensive to finance and maintain. The rental at point 1 costs its landlord $500 to maintain and finance, while the unit at point 2 costs its landlord over $2500 to finance and maintain.
Regarding the first rental, its landlord and tenant both benefit from the transaction. The tenant thinks he got the better end of the deal because he is willing to pay $2500 but only pays $1500. The landlord thinks she got the better end of the deal because she is was willing to accept $500 but gets paid $1500. Both sign the lease because both parties are winners in trade.
All 100 rented units represent win-win transactions. The tenants were willing to pay rents in decreasing order from $2500 to $1500 but each only pays $1500 per month. Relative to the landlords, they all feel like they got the better end of these deals. The pink triangle measures this great feeling. On the other hand, landlords collect $1500 from each tenant but were willing to accept rents in increasing order from $500 to $1500. Relative to their tenants, they feel like they got the better end of these deals. The blue triangle measures this great feeling. Thus, all parties in these trades are winners.
Some renters have been priced out of the market. They populate the faded section of demand. During high school, I was one of them. I wanted to fly the coop but could not afford to do so. Others included in this group are perhaps older workers with low job skills or singles just out of college and looking for first jobs. These folks, if subletting is illegal, find apartments in nearby low-rent markets. Their exit from this market is why the lower section of demand is faded.
Housing laws can adversely impact rents and apartments. An Oregon zoning law shrinks the areas where apartment complexes can be constructed. This decreases supply, raises rents, and reduces the number of available units. NYC restricts subletting. That reduces supply and raises rents. Since renters would have had a room in the absence of subletting restrictions, the restrictions result in higher demand as more people search for rooms. That pushes rents up too. In the absence of all restrictions, markets will find creative ways to solve housing shortages. For example, prior to zoning laws, early Americans turned their homes into boarding houses or residential hotels, which are not unlike the no-frills rooms listed on Airbnb.
When rents get too high, rent control becomes popular among politicians who are either wanting to do the right thing or are shopping for votes. The figure below shows what happens when government sets rental rates (the green line). At the imposed rent, the people who populate the demand line between points 3 and 4 reenter this market to look for apartments. This is why that section of demand is no longer faded. Since the financing and maintenance expenses of the rental units on supply between the blue point and point 3 exceeds the legislated rent, the landlords take these units off the market (e.g., they get listed on Airbnb instead). Thus, the rent ceiling reduces the number of units to 50 but increases the number of people in the market to 150. If subletting is illegal, unsuccessful apartment seekers live in cars or on streets as they wait for tenants to vacate.
Recall that demand represents a queue with the richest renter on the left and the poorest on the right. With the rich owning homes, the upper middle class populates the line between points 1 and 2, the lower middle class populates the line between 2 and 3, and the poor populates the line between 3 and 4. Since the upper middle class are willing and able to pay more than the lower middle and poor classes, they have the most impressive applications or can afford the largest bribes. Thus, the renters with the 50 highest incomes get the 50 apartments that are offered in the market. Those in the lower middle class, who had apartments prior to rent control, are now without homes. The poor were not homeless prior to rent control, as they had low-rent units in nearby neighborhoods. But now they are homeless.
Though rent control is sold as a policy that is intended to help the poor, it induced homelessness among the poor and lower middle classes. It also increased the spoils of trade accruing to renters with the highest incomes. Their spoils increased from what it was prior to rent control (the light pink area) to what is after rent control (the light and dark pink areas).
The consequences of rent control are well understood by economists, from one end of the political spectrum to the other. Given this rare consensus in economics, it is surprising that states like Oregon are on the verge of voluntarily wrecking their housing markets.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...