+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 51
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 13694
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Message icon:

Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 21, 2019, 05:31:57 pm »

Progressive Churches Challenge the Hard-Line 😈 Conservative Evangelical Narrative on Immigration
July 21, 2019

In contrast to the unwavering support that 😈 conservative and 😈 evangelical religious groups give 🦀 President Trump, progressive churches and synagogues are fighting on the front lines against the administration’s anti-immigrant policies


Posted by: Surly1
« on: June 21, 2019, 01:17:50 pm »

Murdoch’s paper is a fierce competitor to Sulzberger’s Times. But Trump raised the stakes—and Sulzberger wanted to reach the business leaders and conservatives who read the Journal.

A.G. Sulzberger
A.G. Sulzberger
By Stephanie Keith/Getty Images.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week was notable not just for its message—”Accusing the New York Times of ‘Treason,’ Trump Crosses a Line”—but for the platform where that message was broadcast. For one thing, it is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for the publisher of a major American newspaper to publish a high-profile opinion piece in the pages of another American newspaper. It is even more remarkable when it’s the man ultimately responsible for the Times’s liberal editorial page publishing something in the Journal’s famously red-blooded opinion section. Never mind that the Times and the Journal have become stronger rivals over the past 10 years, as Rupert Murdoch has moved the Journalcloser to a general-interest newspaper, with broad appeal outside of business and finance. Times media reporter Edmund Leecaptured the moment perfectly on Twitter: “That the publisher of the New York Times wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal underlines the gravity of it all.”

I called Sulzberger to ask him about his decision to write this op-ed and place it in the Journal, and he walked me through his thinking. The Times publisher had already twice met with Donald Trump in person to discuss his concerns regarding the president’s anti-media rhetoric. This time Sulzberger was in the car with his family in upstate New York when Trump hit send on Saturday’s provocative tweet: “Do you believe that the Failing New York Times just did a story stating that the United States is substantially increasing Cyber Attacks on Russia. This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country.....”

“After his tweet, and his attack on the New York Times, and the accusation of treason, I just sat with that word for a while,” Sulzberger told me. “Beyond the significance of this big word, ‘treason,’ which is being recklessly wielded against one of the country’s leading independent news organizations by someone who has the authority to prosecute treason, and beyond the fact that it was inaccurately wielded, after the Times went through all the right steps that a responsible news organization goes through when reporting on a national security issue, having reached out to three different arms of the national security apparatus to see if they had any concerns, and all three told us they did not—beyond all of that, I just started to wonder, What could be next?”

Trump’s attacks on the Times have evolved, from the relatively playful “Failing New York Times” to the darker and more troubling “Fake News New York Times” or “ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE,” which is “a phrase,” Sulzberger noted, “with a long and disturbing history, a phrase that was embraced by both Hitler and Stalin to justify the persecution and execution of enemies.” Now, Sulzberger continued, “here he is using this term ‘treason,’ which has a clear legal meaning—it’s a crime that’s punishable by death. It just felt like he had reached the logical limit of his rhetorical attacks. But also my concern began to be, this is someone who has shown every inclination of not just continuing, but escalating his attacks on journalism and journalists, and if he’s still inclined to do so, all that’s left is to start putting his threats into action. I felt like the longer I thought about it, the more I felt like that was something that had to be said out loud, that it was a concern that should be shared with the public.”

Sulzberger said he felt that this message would be more powerful if it ran in a publication other than his own, because attacks on the press are not something that affect just one institution. And he felt it would be especially powerful if it ran in the Journal.

“I thought there was value to reaching a different audience with this message. Folks who are maybe more conservative, folks who are influential in the business community,” Sulzberger said. “One of the concerns I have right now is, if you look at who’s responding to the attacks on journalists, it tends to be journalists. Folks like Marty Baron, folks like me. And I worry that it’s easy for the public to regard that as institutions looking after their own self-interest. I don’t view it that way. I really hope that other leaders will raise their voices as well. It shouldn’t just be journalists defending journalism. I think any successful business leader will tell you how valuable the free and trustworthy flow of information is for their ability to be successful.”

Sulzberger reached out directly to the Journal’s editorial-page editor, Paul Gigot. He sent him the piece with a short note. Gigot said he’d take a look and get back to him, which he did shortly thereafter, telling Sulzberger they were going to run the op-ed. “The Wall Street Journal is an excellent news organization, and part of being an excellent news organization is turning down pieces, so there’s always the thought that a piece might be turned down,” said Sulzberger. “He was incredibly gracious.”

Since the op-ed was published on Wednesday, he’s heard from a handful of the types of influential and powerful people he was hoping to reach. He read me part of an email he received from someone he described as one of the nation’s most prominent business leaders: “The attacks on the freedom of the press and freedom of expression are deeply troubling. It’s important that you’re making this case.”

As for working with Gigot and his team, Sulzberger said, “It was a good process, and I give them a lot of credit for running it.”

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 06, 2019, 04:21:24 pm »

Columbia: Goddess of America
The Statue of Freedom—also known as Armed Freedom or simply Freedom—is a bronze statue designed by Thomas Crawford that, since has crowned the dome of the U. S. Capitol in Washington, DC (District of COLUMBIA).

Not only Was America Not Christian, but the Founders Invented Goddess Columbia


Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Apr 4, 2019

Despite popular misconceptions from right wing media, America, the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.

America has roots in the deism of the founding fathers, atheism of the enlightenment. The Founding fathers even went so far as to create an American God (Far before Neil Gaiman)

The Goddess Columbia was the creation of the founding fathers who thought the nation should have their own goddess to protect the young nation. This doesn't sound very christian does it?

➡️Please Subscribe to Our Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/thomhart...

► Join us on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann where you can also watch a re-run of the three-hour program at any time
► Subscribe today: http://www.thomhartmann.com/podcast

► AMAZON : http://amzn.to/2hS4UwY
► BLOG : http://www.thomhartmann.com/thom/blog
► FACEBOOK : http://www.facebook.com/ThomHartmannP...
► INSTAGRAM : http://www.instagram.com/Thom_Hartmann
► PATREON : http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann
► TWITTER : http://www.twitter.com/thom_hartmann
► WEBSITE : http://www.thomhartmann.com
► YOUTUBE : http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

The Thom Hartmann Program is the leading progressive political talk radio show for political news and comments about Government politics, be it Liberal or Conservative, plus special guests and callers


✔ Amazon links are affiliate links

Category News & Politics
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 02, 2019, 07:29:10 pm »

Watch Your Language: How 😈 Frank Luntz Used Words as Weapons

Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Mar 29, 2019

Frank Luntz manipulated language to win battles against democrats, liberals, and progressives. Jefferson Smith brings him up to ask us to watch our language. Are the words we are using today actually hurting the progressive cause by falling into right wing Frank Luntz style traps?

Jefferson Smith suggests that the prominence of the word Neoliberal is one of those traps and that it is aimed at confusing liberals with market fundamentalists.

Do you think the word neoliberal is being misused to attack progressives?

➡️Please Subscribe to Our Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/thomhart...

► Join us on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann where you can also watch a re-run of the three-hour program at any time
► Subscribe today: http://www.thomhartmann.com/podcast

► AMAZON : http://amzn.to/2hS4UwY
► BLOG : http://www.thomhartmann.com/thom/blog
► FACEBOOK : http://www.facebook.com/ThomHartmannP...
► INSTAGRAM : http://www.instagram.com/Thom_Hartmann
► PATREON : http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann
► TWITTER : http://www.twitter.com/thom_hartmann
► WEBSITE : http://www.thomhartmann.com
► YOUTUBE : http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

The Thom Hartmann Program is the leading progressive political talk radio show for political news and comments about Government politics, be it Liberal or Conservative, plus special guests and callers


✔ Amazon links are affiliate links

Category News & Politics
the bad freedoms 😈👹💵🎩🏴‍☠️🚩 to exploit those around us and extract huge profits without regard to the common good, including what is done to the ecosystem and democratic institutions. These bad freedoms see corporations monopolize technologies and scientific advances to make huge profits, even when, as with the pharmaceutical industry, a monopoly means lives of those who cannot pay exorbitant prices are put in jeopardy.

The good freedoms—freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of meeting, freedom of association, freedom to choose one’s job—are eventually snuffed out by the primacy of the bad freedoms.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 01, 2019, 01:12:07 pm »

NOTICE: This piece is our April Fool's article. While written in jest, some of the details herein are in fact true, or disturbingly close to it, and the article could be suggestive of what we might face in the near future, should we fail to take corrective action to protect and preserve vaccine exemptions, informed consent and medical freedom of choice.

April 1, 2019

Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Federal Government Mandates Vaccine Reeducation Camps — The Dystopian Future Has Arrived 😨


1. To eliminate false vaccine information and protect public health, the U.S. federal government is mandating vaccine reeducation for vaccine deniers and refusers

2. According to the new law 🦍👹, which will take effect one year from now on April 1, 2020, each vaccine reeducation camp will provide federally sanctioned reeducation on vaccines depending on level of vaccine resistance

3. Level 1 will include infractions such as reading or sharing social media posts containing anti-vaccination sentiments. Level 2 will include level 1 infractions plus public voicing of anti-vaccination sentiments such as “I know someone who was injured by a vaccine”

4. Claiming to have a vaccine-injured child will be considered a level 3 infraction, requiring the longest and most intense reeducation, regardless of whether the individual has engaged in any level 1 or level 2 infractions

5. Following successful reeducation, parents will be given a certificate good for re-entry into society. At that point, they will be able to provide pre-established and appropriate answers to safety questions about vaccines, and both they and their children will be up to date with all vaccinations

Full article:


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 11, 2019, 12:29:39 am »

Why is Amazon already selling the Robert Mueller report?

Bill Palmer | 7:52 pm EDT March 9, 2019

Palmer Report » Fact Check

This month two different books called “The Mueller Report” have become available for preorder on the Amazon.com website. One is being offered by the Washington Post, and the other claims to be from Robert Mueller while boasting of an introduction from Alan Dershowitz. Both books claim a release date of March 26th, 2019. Meanwhile, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has made no indication of when or how his report will be released. So what’s really going on here?

Here are the facts. No one, outside of Robert Mueller and his team, has any specific knowledge about when his report will be issued. These two “books” are merely empty templates that have been put up for preorder, with best guesses for release dates. They each plan to take the publicly available version of Mueller’s report that you’ll be able to get anywhere else for free, stuff it into a book, add some custom material, and charge you money.

The version being offered by the Washington Post says it’ll include “related materials” from the newspaper. Fair enough; you’re paying to get the Post’s analysis of the Mueller report, once the report surfaces. Considering the solid investigative research that the Post has done into Donald Trump’s various criminal scandals over the past few years, this analysis could prove to be seful.

The other version misleadingly lists “Robert S. Mueller III” as the author but is actually being offered by Skyhorse publishing, which has previously published pro-Trump books from Alan Dershowitz, including “The Case Against Impeaching Trump.” For this new book, the “introduction” from Dershowitz will likely be something more akin to a rebuttal of the Mueller report. Unless you’re a Trump supporter and you want to read Dershowitz defending his ally Trump while attacking Mueller, ordering this version would be a complete waste of money.

In any case, neither of these books has any actual connection to Robert Mueller. He’s not releasing or participating in these two book releases. He’s simply going to issue his report, which will then go to the Attorney General, who will release some or all of it publicly, ostensibly followed by a battle with House Democrats about how much more of it to publicly release. These two book publishers will then take the publicly available version of Mueller’s report, which will be published for free by every major news outlet out there, and “sell” it to you along with added content. One book claims to be 720 pages and the other claims to be 960 pages, but these are both clearly made-up numbers.

If Robert Mueller’s report doesn’t become public by the March 26th “release date” that’s arbitrarily been assigned to these two books, you’ll see that release date moved further back, as the publishers take revised guesses about when the report might surface. While these books will technically include the Mueller report, these books are not how Robert Mueller is releasing his report; you’re simply paying to get third party analysis of Mueller’s report once it’s released to the public for free. 


Agelbert NOTE: IOW, DON'T be fooled into paying for a propaganda massaged version of the Mueller report. 8)

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 06, 2019, 07:10:31 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 04, 2019, 08:00:54 pm »

Constructing Rebellion, The Overthrow of Corporate Tyrrany - Chris Hedges

Aer O'Head

Published on Feb 25, 2019

Chris Hedges

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 25, 2019, 06:47:11 pm »

FEB 22, 2019


The most effective way to tackle Trump’s propaganda effort to deploy “socialism” as a dirty word is to counter with how capitalism has failed.

Full article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 23, 2019, 12:42:54 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Surly  continues to successfully expose Ashvin's 😈 disingenuous sophistry.

Are you so imprisoned by your ideology that you can't recognize these blessings?

Of course there is no guarantee these blessings will last, and we need to work hard to keep them in place. If either the radical right or your radical leftist buddies get what they are after, a bunch of them go out the window and we are left with brutal tyranny and mass death. To pretend like that's what we already have takes a huge sh it on the people who are truly suffering under tyrannies around the world.

IOW,  Capitalism, i.e.  , is "superior" to "Socialism" because it provides more material "blessings" than "Socialism".

Ashvin, if you are right about that, then most people now subject to unending misery and privation due to ruthless exploitation under the more ideologically pure versions of Capitalism, unlike the hybrid version in Denmark where millions of small businesses operate quite successfully under high taxation and socialst based subsidized college and medicine and successful prisoner rehabilitation, are doomed to greater misery, not more "blessings". Over 2 billion people, right now on this overwhelmingly CAPITALIST planet Earth, are zinc deficient. That is a DIRECT result of the present economic system you so celebrate.

I didn't mention capitalism at all in that post, and you KNOW that. Surly responded to my emphasis on constitutional republics, something he believes doesn't exist in the U.S., and I stayed on that same point. I specifically said "NOT capitalism" in my post. You conveniently left those parts out of your quotation of me. The principles of a constitutional republic are not absent in Denmark as far as I know.

NOW you wish to cite the sins of others for leaving out parts of a citation, when it is your MO and stock in trade? Moar projection, and soar greatest hits from the Prince of Lies. The fact is that you have extolled the blessings of capitalism with breathless enthusiasm in other posts, so it's hardly as if AG has taken you out of context. Liar.

You get one thing right: I do not believe we have a functional "constitutional republic," so much as a functional oligarchy. We observe the forms of the constitution, but not so much the function, as bequeathed by the "miracle working founders." Hamilton, et al wrote strong and specific Article One powers, which craven editions of the Congress, with a love of not voting on the record and an endless capacity for can-kicking, have ceded to the Executive Branch: the war powers, a functional immigration policy, all toward deferring to the power of the unitary executive. Certain executives, such as Cheney, have enthusiastically taken advantage of the the ability to thus wield power. Even Obama, who started out as conciliator, and as up governing by executive order far more that he might have liked in the face of an obstructionist Republican Congress whose stated purpose (from the night of his inauguration, and in so many words) was to destroy his presidency.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin left the hall in Philadelphia, he was asked, “What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?” He replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The Constitution is a remarkable document, one of the greatest fruits of The Enlightenment, and If you read the book Hamilton, you understand that its ratification by the 13 original states was by no means a sure thing.  As remarkable a document as it may be, it was George W. Bush who was reported in 2005 to have said, “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Whether the anecdote is true of not, it speaks to the mindset inside the Beltway and of unitary executives.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 22, 2019, 06:50:36 pm »

Are you so imprisoned by your ideology that you can't recognize these blessings?

Of course there is no guarantee these blessings will last, and we need to work hard to keep them in place. If either the radical right or your radical leftist buddies get what they are after, a bunch of them go out the window and we are left with brutal tyranny and mass death. To pretend like that's what we already have takes a huge sh it on the people who are truly suffering under tyrannies around the world.

IOW,  Capitalism, i.e.  , is "superior" to "Socialism" because it provides more material "blessings" than "Socialism".

Ashvin, if you are right about that, then most people now subject to unending misery and privation due to ruthless exploitation under the more ideologically pure versions of Capitalism, unlike the hybrid version in Denmark where millions of small businesses operate quite successfully under high taxation and socialst based subsidized college and medicine and successful prisoner rehabilitation, are doomed to greater misery, not more "blessings". Over 2 billion people, right now on this overwhelmingly CAPITALIST planet Earth, are zinc deficient. That is a DIRECT result of the present economic system you so celebrate.

Zinc deficiency is characterized by growth retardation, loss of appetite, and impaired immune function. In more severe cases, zinc deficiency causes hair loss, diarrhea, delayed sexual maturation, impotence, hypogonadism in males, and eye and skin lesions [2,8,27,28]

That is just one of MANY downsides of Capitalism that you claim would be "worse" under Socialism.

Two Billion people is NOT a number you can stuff into the "human pecking order stuff happens" (see lobsters and Jordan Peterson) ideology that is intrinsic to the defense of the predictable high percentage of "losers" in the Capitalist system.

I will not argue this any further with you. If you are right, and Capitalism and Christianity are compatible and complementary, then I am not a Christian.

If you are wrong, then may God have mercy on your wicked soul.

Draw me not away with the wicked, and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts. -- Psalm 28:3
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 22, 2019, 05:47:04 pm »

These days, anybody who says anything significant that contradicts accepted social memes is attacked and you can find all manner of hit pieces on Jordan Peterson, and they're all pretty stupid, just what you'd expect. You can't argue with people like me (or Ashvin) with this kind of cut-and-paste. The best you can do is try to post so much silly crap it pushes our comments down the page out of sight.

Neither you, nor the authors of this trash really have taken the time to really listen to JP, who has a decent rationale for everything he says, and is probably one of the smartest, most sincere searchers for truth in this generation. I don't agree with him on everything, but the idea that he is somehow serving the elites or the status quo is absurd.

You have an agenda and you know how to cut and paste. What else have you got? If you want to argue with smart people, bring some original thoughts.

Translation: I believe what i believe, and I'm not nothing to read anything that disagrees with what I believe, because fu ck you.

Anything that is a critique of JP is necessarily a hit piece, and dismissed out of hand. Because all such articles are stupid.

Joe McCarthy also had "a decent rationale" for everything he said.

And what is "absurd" is that he is NOT "somehow serving the elites or the status quo."

No, you've just decided to channel Smokey, and I won't play that sh it. Get educated or leave me the fu ck alone.

I study what I write about. I'm not just an aggregator. Just because you find some cheezie hit piece on JP, it doesn't mean you have some valid point to make.

Your attack dog comments on Ashvin are largely ad hom, and you know that. I don't always agree with Ashvin either. But you and RE are using him for sport, in my opinion.

And your knowledge base on JP  (neither one of you) is adequate to make an original cogent comment.

Have fun turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post. I'm interested primarily in collapse, not this silly political red-wash bullshit.

Having created over 100 original blog posts for this blog, I feel the accusation of "cut-n-paste" is unwarranted. Like other posters, I place other articles here every day. So what? Where is the harm in that.

"Just an aggregator?" Yes, I aggregate every day to put the Doomstead Diner daily  together. And I paste some of the articles here. I didn't know this activity upset you so. Oh, my.

You note that my "attack dog comments" on Fucko are largely ad hom. But you remain mute as the tomb about the ones that are not. Also silent as the Sphinx about the fact that ASHVIN STARTED IT. He went ad hom first (old white man, etc.). So the best he gets is the back of my hand. So spare me the crocodile tears for "poor Ashvin." If he is sport, it's because he's made a game of it.

You cannot imagine that any of this is pleasant. As I told someone else today, these pissing matches leave the forum reeking of stale urine, like an alleyway where drunks pi ss. They annoy the regulars and scare the noobs and lurkers. But I am not going to permit free market fundamentalism go unchallenged while I am sucking a breath. And if you think that is "turning the Diner into a lying mouthpiece like the Greaneville Post," you are a lot less thoughtful than I gave you credit for being. Or choose to turn a blind eye.

Well elucidated, Surly.

FWIW, I wish to point out the irony of Eddie complaining about "attack dog and largely ad hom comments" when Eddie has never hesitated to unload "Trailer Park Jesus" and "Loser" ad hominem attacks on me , with obvious relish, whenevah he feels like it.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 21, 2019, 09:11:15 pm »

TrollBuster9090 (4,793 posts)

Februray 21, 2019

📢 Keep This Story Alive. (F)Tucker Carlson Is Running Scared Over Bergman Exposing Fox News Bias

We all know that Fux Noise is a propaganda channel, and they often decide not to air segments when guests with opposing viewpoints make fools out of the hosts. What DOESN'T usually happen is when the guest records the interview they refused to air, and then posts it on his own.

Such was the case when Tucker Carlson thought he could make a fool out of (slightly flakey) economist Rutger Bergman. Bergman ended up making a fool of Carlson instead. Carlson lost his cool, unloaded profanity on Bergman, and then didn't air the segment.

..But BERGMAN did  ;D, and the rest is history.

Here is the interview Bergman recorded from his end, which he posted on youtube. Carlson is obviously rattled by Bergman's exposure of the fact that Carlson is 'a millionaire who's employed by billionaires,' and that being the reason Carlson couldn't air the segment. In the second video below, Carlson makes a pathetic attempt to say he didn't air the segment BECAUSE of the profanity. Nice try, you snotty little trust fund brat.

Fox is in DAMAGE CONTROL MODE, keep after them!


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 09, 2019, 06:28:31 pm »

Longtime Reporter Leaves NBC Calling Media a “Trump Circus

BY Amy Goodman & Juan González, Democracy Now!

PUBLISHED January 9, 2019

“Prisoners of Donald Trump.” That’s how longtime NBC reporter and analyst William Arkin described the mainstream media in a scathing letter last week announcing he would be leaving the network, accusing the media of warmongering while ignoring the “creeping fascism of homeland security.” He issued the blistering critique after a 30-year relationship with NBC, calling for “Trump-free” media days and a reckoning about how the network encourages a state of perpetual warfare. We speak with Arkin, whose award-winning reporting has appeared in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post. He is the author of many books, including Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: “Prisoners of Donald Trump.” That’s how longtime NBC reporter and analyst William Arkin described the mainstream media in a scathing letter last week announcing he would be leaving the network, accusing the media of warmongering while ignoring the, quote, “creeping fascism of homeland security.” Arkin issued the blistering critique after a 30-year relationship with NBC, calling for Trump-free media days and a reckoning about how the network encourages a state of perpetual warfare.

In the memo, he writes, quote, “I find it disheartening that we do not report the failures of the generals and national security leaders. I find it shocking that we essentially condone continued American bumbling in the Middle East and now Africa through our ho-hum reporting.”

He continues, quote, “Of course [Trump] is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I’m alarmed at how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war.”

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we’re joined by William Arkin, longtime NBCreporter and analyst. His award-winning reporting has appeared in The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post. He’s the author of many books, including Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

WILLIAM ARKIN: Thanks, Amy, for having me on.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you left NBC with this explosive memo, that not only indicts NBC, your network, says basically NBC, they might not like this, but doesn’t stand out among the crowd of corporate networks in dealing with this issue of perpetual war.

WILLIAM ARKIN: Everything I said in this letter, which was a goodbye letter to my colleagues at NBC, applies to all of the mainstream networks, applies to CNN and Fox, as well. So, I’m not really singling out NBC. I was just most familiar with it.

And my decision not to renew my contract was really one of thinking to myself that I wanted to stand back and think more about what we needed to do in order to change our national security policy. We’ve been at war now for 18 years. I don’t think anybody could argue that there’s a country in the Middle East that’s safer today than it was in 2001. The generals and the national security leadership that runs the country, and now also is the commentators and the analysts who populate the news media, really are not people who we can look to as saying, “Wow! They won a war. They avoided a war. They achieved some magnificent objective.” In fact, they are the custodians and the architects of perpetual warfare. And it seemed to me like there needed to be both a different voice and a solution. And I want to step back myself and think about how we can end this era of perpetual war and how we can build some real security, both in the United States and abroad.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’m wondering, in terms of your concerns about the coverage of President Trump and of the Trump era and your concern about the fixation—and it really is an obsession, almost—of all of the networks with covering him on not just a daily, but an hourly, minute-by-minute basis.

WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, let me just say, I’m here at Democracy Now!, and I shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds me, but you started your broadcast today making fun of the president and his remarks last night about the border. It’s almost impossible to avoid.

Donald Trump runs a circus. Every day, he gets up, he unzips his pants, and we go, “Oh, my god! What is he doing?” And then the next day he repeats, and we repeat.

So, I think that, to some degree, he sucks the oxygen out of the debate. He changes the discourse. And we haven’t figured out yet in the news media, every part of the news media, how to get beyond that. So, I’m not arguing only about the mainstream. I think everyone is stuck in the Donald Trump circus.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, I have to take issue with you saying “making fun,” because “fun” is the one word I wouldn’t use. But, yes, we did focus on what he had to say. The more the networks broadcast directly what he has to say, this is the information that gets out to the American people, and it is so critical to take on each point. In that case, for example, that immigrants commit more crimes than natural-born Americans, which isn’t true. And it’s absolutely critical, each time those comments are made, to counter them.

But let’s get to the issue of who populates the network TV shows, which is validating an issue you have criticized for so long and investigated for so long: the national security state.

WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, you know, I’ve been associated with television for 30 years. I’ve been a journalist for about the same period of time, but it’s not my background. My background was in Army intelligence, and then, thereafter, I wrote books about the military. And I was called upon to be a journalist because there was a desire on the part of the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and NBC to have experts helping people to understand an incredibly complex issue—national security.

In those days, when I started, we used to have civilian experts on the air, people who weren’t former government officials, people who weren’t retired generals, people who might be university professors or activists who worked in nongovernmental organizations or experts who were associated with think tanks. Something happened post-9/11, something happened in this intervening years, in which those people virtually disappeared from the airwaves, and we don’t see as many anymore.

And, in fact, we increasingly see journalists who are the commentators on what’s going on. Now, that’s a tricky position, because journalists are supposed to be unbiased, but also, at the same time, they’re supposed to be explaining to the public what’s going on with inside information.

But the end result of it is that we become shallower and shallower in our coverage, particularly in an area like national security. We’ve just become so shallow that we’re not really able even to see the truth, which is that we’re at war right now in nine countries around the world where we’re bombing, and we hardly report any of it on a day-to-day basis.

So, to me, the crisis is that we condone perpetual war by virtue of our lack of reporting and investigation, and then, second, we fill the airwaves or we fill the newspapers with stories about the immediate and don’t give an adequate amount of space to deeper investigations or what I would say would be net assessment investigations of what really is going on.

I mean, whether we should or shouldn’t withdraw troops from Syria, whether we should or shouldn’t withdraw troops from Afghanistan, whether we should or we shouldn’t improve our relations with Russia, whether we should or we shouldn’t pursue denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula—all of these questions deserve a high degree of investigation and reporting, beyond the question of whether or not Donald Trump is a buffoon. And we just don’t do it. We’re just not doing it.

And so, to me, I’m not necessarily interested in prescribing the why. I’m interested in changing the culture so that we can, in fact, better inform ourselves about national security, so that the citizenry can play a more powerful role in influencing our national security policy.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to expand on that. Back in the ’70s, the old socialist economists Baran and Sweezy used to talk about the huge percentage of the American population that owed its livelihood directly to the defense industry. Right? And one of the things in your Top Secret America exposés is that the Cold War ended, and the threats, supposedly, in terms of state threats, receded to the United States, but yet, obviously, the military maintains its huge spread across the world. And more importantly, through homeland security, the militarization internally of the country, as you point out, has gotten to the point where people don’t even know how extensive the homeland security apparatus is of this country and the number of people that have top-secret clearance.


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, it seems to me that the number of people working for this apparatus has actually grown, despite the fact that the threats, the existential threats, to the United States have receded.

WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, there’s no question that the national security establishment has grown and has become far more powerful than it ever was. But here’s the change. We’ve shifted from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. And consequently, we’ve also shifted from the dominance of the military-industrial complex, if you will, to a much more insidious and much more difficult-to-diagnose information complex. So, the advent of contractors, the advent of a professional military, which means that the military itself touches fewer and fewer lives in America, all of those work together to make the national security state more and more embedded within our society, but yet, at the same time, more difficult to get to, more difficult to understand.

So, most people would be surprised to learn, for instance, that Amazon is one of the largest defense contractors, that they’re building the cloud and they’re building the data centers which support the intelligence community and support the military. And there are other civilian companies, that we associate with being civilians, who are also terrific beneficiaries of the military’s largesse.

So, to me, to diagnose properly where we stand today, the point of the Top Secret America investigation was to show the wild growth of all areas of national security and this new invention of homeland security, if you will, but at the same time to point out that it wasn’t something that was necessarily segregated from our society, it was more and more embedded within our society, and that that made it more and more difficult to analyze properly and to do something about.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you talked about the people who populate the networks as pundits, and you’ve been a fierce critic of the national security state, or at least understanding who it is who is explaining things to us. Reading from Politico, “Former CIA Director John Brennan … the latest superspook,” they said, “to be reborn as a TV newsie. He just cashed in at NBC News as a ‘senior national security and intelligence analyst’ and served his first expert views … on Meet the Press. The Brennan acquisition seeks to elevate NBC to spook parity with CNN, which employs former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director Michael Hayden in a similar capacity. Other, lesser-known national security veterans thrive under TV’s grow lights. Almost too numerous to list, they include Chuck Rosenberg, former acting DEA administrator, chief of staff for FBI Director James Comey, and counselor to former FBI Director Robert Mueller; Frank Figliuzzi, former chief of FBI counterintelligence; Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser under Bush, at NBC; and Fran Townsend, homeland security adviser under Bush.” And it goes on and on and on.

These are now the pundits. And so, when you have a situation like President Trump announcing he will immediately withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and halve the troops that are in Afghanistan, you have this massive attack on him that’s actually led by the permanent national security state under the guise of pundits on television.

WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, I think that you’ve—I mean, what you said stands for itself, Amy. But I would add to it that I think the real crisis is that when we have a panel discussion on television, in the mainstream press, and even in the mainstream newspapers, we don’t populate that panel with people who are in opposition. We have a single war party in the United States, and it’s the only one that is given voice. And so, really, the crisis is not so much that there are experienced government officials speaking out; the problem is that there aren’t critics who are sitting next to them saying that “You’re full of it.” And so, to me, we need to balance that.

And I think that probably because of the phenomenon of Donald Trump—let’s just be honest about it—really what we see on TV now is former Obama administration officials masquerading as analysts who are nonpartisan, when in fact they are partisan. And indeed we see fewer retired generals and fewer retired admirals, who sometimes are useful in terms of explaining the profession of arms and the conduct of military operations, in favor of these political figures who have a partisan view.

I just don’t think the American public gets well served by the fact that there isn’t a broad range of opinions on those panels. I want to see peaceniks. I want to see academics. I want to see historians. I want them to as much have a voice, in terms of understanding what’s going on, as I do see a former Obama administration official.

AMY GOODMAN: We have break, but we’re going to come back to this conversation and talk, among other issues, about one of your statements—”don’t even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?’’—and much more. We’re speaking to William Arkin, a longtime NBC reporter and analyst who just left the network, penning a letter critiquing the network for supporting perpetual warfare, his criticism, talking about the creeping fascism of homeland security. Stay with us.

Yes, I’ll Chip In

Video of interview at link below:


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 08, 2019, 06:48:08 pm »

Nationalize the News Media to Save Democracy

Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Jan 7, 2019

Would nationalizing the news save our democracy from corporate owned news or would corproate owned politicians like Donald Trump use it to get total control of the news narrative?

Would Nationalizing the news help or hurt our democracy?

The News Media Cares Only For Money, Not You! (2019)

Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Jan 7, 2019

Is the news media's focus on sensationalism?   Do they care about the integrity of their reporting or does the news media only care about the bottom line?

How can we have journalism that is not beholden to money?

Are Fox 😈 News Viewers 🐒 Being Conned?

Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Jan 7, 2019

Are Fox News Viewers Being Conned or are they in on the game? 

Should we treat them with sympathy as working class people tricked by the corporate owned news media or as agents the lapdogs of the morbidly rich with a negative solidarity with the worst elements in our society?

or maybe a little of both, what do you think, are Fox News viewers being conned?

News Media Not Reporting Higher Taxes. What's being Hidden? (2019)

Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Jan 7, 2019

All the available information shows that taxing the rich will boost the economy, good for the people and good for the country, but the news won't report this, why not?

Did U.S. Foreign Policy Create the Migrant Crisis?

Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Jan 7, 2019

The Southern Border of the United States has been at the center of controversy since Donald Trump opened his campaign for president by taking aim at Illegal immigrants and making "Build a wall" one of his most well known slogans. 

Missing from headlines about Trump's extreme policies, is the and why the Migrant Caravan, Refugees and immigrants are coming to the border?

Professor Greg Grandin , author of numerous books, including The Last Colonial Massacre and  the upcoming The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall, joins the program with disturbing answers, imperialism and colonialism.

Did U.S. imperialism create the migrant crisis?

► Join us on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann where you can also watch a re-run of the three hour program at any time
► Subscribe today: http://www.thomhartmann.com/podcast

► AMAZON : http://amzn.to/2hS4UwY
► BLOG : http://www.thomhartmann.com/thom/blog
► FACEBOOK : http://www.facebook.com/ThomHartmannP...
► INSTAGRAM : http://www.instagram.com/Thom_Hartmann
► PATREON : http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann
► TWITTER : http://www.twitter.com/thom_hartmann
► WEBSITE : http://www.thomhartmann.com
► YOUTUBE : http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

The Thom Hartmann Program is the leading progressive political talk radio show for political news and comment about Government politics, be it Liberal or Conservative, plus special guests and callers

✔ Amazon links are affiliate links

Category News & Politics

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 21, 2018, 01:53:29 pm »

Moyers Talks To Author Ben Fountain About Trump’s Triumph

This is the boldest, bravest and most bracing book about politics that I have read this year.



BEN FOUNTAIN: So much of the news coverage portrayed his campaign as a challenge to the establishment of the Republican Party, the way the Republican Party had conducted itself the last 50 years. But, come on, he was simply doing the same thing, talking the same game Republicans have been doing for years, but he did it better. He’s absolutely a virtuoso of the politics of paranoia and racism, cultural resentment, xenophobia, misogyny and all the rest that the GOP has prospered on for the past 50 years.
What IS a New Democrat 😈?

BILL MOYERS: Yet he would have lost, I’ll wager, if the Democrats had kept their house in order and their priorities straight. Your take on how both parties paved the way for Trump is tough and true, but your account of how the Democrats piled on the people they once represented is one for the ages, in no small part because of your eye for details. Your chapter “Hillary Doesn’t Live Here Anymore” is wicked in its particulars. You might have painted a big mural on the wall — and there is an impressive scope to your story — but it’s the pimples of guilt that are most revealing. Like how establishment Democrats, seeing Republicans raise so much money from the oligarchs, set out to tap into the loot by developing close relationships with big donors and big business. For one thing, they organized an outfit called the Democratic Leadership Council [DLC] with an “executive council” that included corporate behemoths such as ARCO, Chevron, Merck, DuPont, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Koch Industries. Among the trustees would eventually be the longtime chief political operative for Charles 🦕 and David Koch 🦖. His nickname was “the Pirate .” I might think you had made that up if I hadn’t seen note 11, page 255.

BEN FOUNTAIN: Thank you. But let me make this point: In one sense the so-called New Democrats of the Clinton years were traditional Democrats in that they were still strong for civil rights, for cultural diversity, sensitive to sexual orientation and ethnicity. But in terms of rock-bottom economics, of all those people really hurt, even ruined, under globalization and the reckless financialization of the American economy, establishment Democrats became more and more like Republicans: They stopped making the case for government. Republicans were perfectly happy to wage class war against the constituencies Democrats nominally represent. Democrats didn’t exactly become pacifists, but — well, let me put it this way: Those eight years of Bill Clinton’s New Democrats served the party’s traditional constituency of the working class, the middle class, minorities, the poor and immigrants about as well as the second coming of Herbert Hoover.

BILL MOYERS: One might say Democrats pulled up their roots on Main Street and repotted them on Wall Street, where Hillary Clinton plucked plenty of posies before and during the 2016 campaign.


BILL MOYERS: We’re finally scraping the whitewash off our mythologies, and that’s painful for those whose lives were framed by those mythologies.

BEN FOUNTAIN: Yes, the paradigm of what it means to be an American is changing, and it needs to change if we’re going to have a realistic idea of ourselves and our history. There’s the old paradigm of mythic whiteness — John Wayne, on his horse: the big white guy who tames the frontier. Well, the reality was — is — much more complex and problematic than that. But a lot of white folks have felt demeaned and put-upon, especially by so-called “elites” — educated opinion, the intellectuals, the scholars and writers who are bringing historical truths to light and insisting that they be reckoned with. Not only do a lot of white people feel threatened by this, they feel insulted, condemned. That’s a fraught psychological state to live in.

BILL MOYERS: People want their John Wayne back.

BEN FOUNTAIN: Oh man, do they. I saw it everywhere on the campaign trail: Trump gave a huge swath of white America back to itself. Gave them psychological, emotional affirmation as an antidote for all the anxiety, all the resentment they’d been feeling. He told them: “You aren’t bad; you’re good. Actually, you are the real America.” That kind of affirmation is powerful medicine in politics.

The Ghost of George Wallace

BILL MOYERS: Backlash thrives on it. Think of the backlash after the emancipation of the slaves. Demagogic politicians rallied a defeated and sullen South to put the chains back on black people — all those segregationist laws of Jim Crow. Lynching that continued into the 20th century. Statues erected to Confederate warriors to preserve the memory of the “Lost Cause.  And then the backlash in our time against the Supreme Court’s order to desegregate the schools, against passage by Congress of civil rights and voting rights legislation, against the struggle and victories of the civil rights movement. Whites fled to the suburbs, opened private religious schools, created federal housing policies that institutionalized segregation on economic grounds.


BILL MOYERS: Yeats got it right: “We had fed the heart on fantasies / The heart’s grown brutal from the fare.”


J.R. Comes Home

BILL MOYERS: So he’s less an aberration than a culmination —

BEN FOUNTAIN: — Of a certain strand of American life, yes. Well, several strands. We can’t discount the con man strand, for one. I found myself wondering how many tricks Trump poached from J.R. Ewing [the star of the TV series Dallas in the ’70s, played by Larry Hagman]. The creators of that hit saga had intended for J.R.’s “good” brother Bobby to be the star, but J.R. — a snake and bastard who cheated on his wife — stole the show. The man truly did not give a **** about anyone else. Yet the audience took to the villain — loved him. You can imagine Donald Trump watching J.R. and thinking, I can work with this. Just be myself . People loved J.R. not in spite of his nastiness and greed but because of it.

Full, excellent, article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 04, 2018, 05:01:17 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Here's the money quote in the following FACTUAL article with video:
NewsGuard , clearly influenced by Wall Street and indebted to big industries through its funding, is being positioned to eliminate competition, which will allow Big Industry to reign as the leading shaper of public opinion and government health policies

BEWARE: New Plan to Censor Health Websites

Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked 
December 04, 2018


NewsGuard will rate online news brands based on nine criteria of credibility and transparency, ostensibly to help readers judge what is true in order to avoid fake news. It is currently focusing on U.S.-based media brands, but plans to expand online site reviews globally

NewsGuard received much of its startup funds from Publicis Groupe, a global communications group whose history of clients includes the drug and tobacco industries

NewsGuard, clearly influenced by Wall Street and indebted to big industries through its funding, is being positioned to eliminate competition, which will allow Big Industry to reign as the leading shaper of public opinion and government health policies

► Americans’ trust in the media is at an all-time low. According to a 2017 Survey on Trust, Media and Democracy by the Knight Foundation, 43 percent of Americans have a negative view of news media

► Sixty-six percent believe “most news media do not do a good job of separating fact from opinion”

Full Article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 26, 2018, 01:40:44 pm »

The “Malaise” Speech: When Jimmy Carter Humbly Told the Truth to Americans

July 16, 2018 | By The Conversation

Guest post by David Swartz of Asbury University/The Conversation

Employees at a gas station in Los Angeles watch President Jimmy Carter giving his energy speech over national television on July 15, 1979 (AP file photo)

Nearly 40 years ago, on July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter went on national television to share with millions of Americans his diagnosis of a nation in crisis. “All the legislation in the world,” he proclaimed, “can’t fix what’s wrong with America.” He went on to call upon American citizens to reflect on the meaning and purpose of their lives together.

Carter made several specific policy prescriptions. But in a presidency animated by spirituality perhaps more than any other in American history, this speech called more generally for national self-sacrifice and humility.

At a time when political strongmen, hypernationalism, and xenophobia have risen in the U.S. and the world, Carter’s speech offers a powerful counterexample to these trends.

A nation in ‘very serious trouble’

In 1979, Jimmy Carter was three years into his presidency. The burdens were many. Leading a divided Democratic Party, he faced a staunch and growing Republican opposition. The nation suffered from stagflation, a combination of economic stagnation and 12 percent inflation.

In 1973 the OPEC cartel, comprised mostly of Middle Eastern countries, had cut oil production and imposed an embargo against nations that supported Israel. In the late 1970s production declined again. Coupled with high global demand, this generated an energy crisis that increased gasoline prices by 55 percent in the first half of 1979.

In protest, truckers set bonfires in Pennsylvania, and Carter’s approval rating sank to 30 percent. An anxious Carter cut short his overseas trip to Vienna where he was holding nuclear-arms talks with the Soviet Union’s Leonid Brezhnev.

After a brief stop in Washington, the President retreated to Camp David for ten days. As he considered the severe and interlocking problems facing his administration, Carter read the Bible, historian Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism, and economist E.F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful, a meditation on the value of local community and the problems of excessive consumption.

He also invited representatives from many sectors of American life – business and labor leaders, teachers and preachers, and politicians and intellectuals – to consult with him. By the end of his retreat, Carter had concluded that the country faced more than a series of isolated problems. Collectively they comprised a fundamental cultural crisis.

The malaise speech

Having cloistered himself for an unprecedented length of time, the President emerged from Camp David with great drama on July 15, 1979. In a nationally televised speech that was watched by 65 million Americans, Carter intoned an evangelical-sounding lament about “a crisis of the American spirit.”

He said,

“In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now worship self-indulgence and consumption.”

Indeed, the President’s sermon expounded at length about excess. “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns,” he preached. But “owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning.”

It was a penetrating cultural critique that reflected Carter’s spiritual values. Like the writers of the New Testament, he called out sin. Like the prophets of the Old Testament, he confessed to personal and national pride.

In the mode of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, he noted the limits of human power and righteousness. In this moment of national chastening, he committed himself and the nation to rebirth and renewal.

As a scholar of American religious history, this so-called “malaise speech” (though Carter never actually used the word “malaise”) was, in my opinion, the most theologically profound speech by an American president since Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.

A squandered opportunity

This articulation of economic and political humility sounded the perfect pitch for a nation whose confidence in civil institutions had been shaken. The Watergate scandal had revealed corruption in the nation’s highest political offices. The Vietnam War had ended with a Communist victory.

The “malaise speech” was a continuation of a long-running theme for Carter. In his 1977 inaugural address, he intoned, “We have learned that ‘more’ is not necessarily ‘better,’ that even our great nation has its recognized limits, and that we can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems … we must simply do our best.”

Popular memory suggests that the nation reacted negatively to his speech. In The Age of Reagan, historian Sean Wilentz writes that Carter appeared to be blaming the American citizens for their problems. Others panned Carter’s idealistic approach to the energy crisis as naïve.

Soon after the speech, Carter got a bump in his approval ratings. AP Photo/Harry Cabluck

But that was not how most Americans received the speech. In fact, Carter enjoyed an immediate 11 percent bump in his job approval rating in the days that followed. Clearly many agreed with Carter’s line that the nation was mired in a “moral and spiritual crisis.”

The President, however, failed to capitalize on the resonance with his meditation. Just two days after his speech, Carter fired his entire cabinet, which seemed to suggest that his government was in disarray.

The President’s poll numbers immediately melted. As Time magazine described it, “The President basked in the applause for a day and then set in motion his astounding purge, undoing much of the good he had done himself.” Ronald Reagan soon capitalized on the disillusionment. “I find no national malaise,” said Carter’s successor, who campaigned on a platform of America as “a shining city on a hill.

About to win the Cold War, America was ready for some exuberant nationalism, not a plain-style president who insisted on carrying his own garment bag aboard Air Force One.

New resonance

Forty years later, national jingoism pervades both political parties. Republicans and Democrats alike speak of the United States as a “city on a hill,” and Donald Trump’s “America first” rhetoric has lifted hubris to new heights and alienated allies around the world.

The Conversation Jimmy Carter’s sermon of humility speaks more than ever to crises of our times.

David Swartz is Associate Professor of History, Asbury University. This article was originally published on The Conversation.


“The world says: "You have needs -- satisfy them. You have as much right as the rich and the mighty. Don't hesitate to satisfy your needs; indeed, expand your needs and demand more." This is the worldly doctrine of today. And they believe that this is freedom. The result for the rich is isolation and suicide, for the poor, envy and murder.” ― Fyodor Dostoyyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Tomorrow is Yesterday...

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 20, 2018, 07:17:10 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The sad, but truthful, evidence that too many people have been brainwashed by our money worshipping sick society into equating cost with quality.

Nevertheless, it shows irrefutable evidence of the healing power of human faith , that most "modern" atheists refuse to acknowledge.

How Powerful Is the Placebo Effect? ???

You might not be able to put a price on happiness, but new research suggests that you may be able to put one on miracle medicine. In a recent study, 12 people with Parkinson's disease were given two identical saline injections (ie. placebos) but were told that one of the medications cost $1,500 USD and the other cost $100 USD.

The first injection produced a two-fold improvement in motor functioning compared with the second, and both showed improvement from the patients' baseline numbers.

The researchers suggest that since Parkinson's patients have decreased dopamine production as the disease worsens, the simple belief that a new medication might help was enough to prompt their brains to produce more dopamine.

Afterwards, two-thirds of the volunteers who showed the most improvement said that they believed the more expensive injection would provide the greatest benefit.

The good and bad of placebos: 🕵️

֍ In some cases, administering placebos has caused a "reverse placebo effect" in which patients experience side effects not associated with any medication.

֍ Clinical trials typically compare new medications with those already in use, not new medications with placebos.

֍ Some patients, notably those suffering from depression, ADHD, and irritable bowel syndrome, have shown improvement even when told that they are receiving a placebo.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 08, 2018, 10:36:49 pm »



Paul Street’s column will appear in Truthdig each Sunday through Aug. 12. Its regular schedule will resume when Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges returns from vacation.

The American Sea of Deception

By Paul Street

On the list of presidential liars: Shortly after being told of the 9/11 attacks of 2001, George W. Bush confers with administration members at a Florida school he was visiting. Months later, he would lie to the American people as he sought to justify an invasion of Iraq partly on the basis of the attacks. (The U.S. National Archives)

Four days ago, The Washington Post reported that the epic pathological liar Donald Trump made 4,229 false statements during his first 558 days as United States president. Trump spoke or tweeted falsely, on average, an astonishing 7.6 times per day during that time.

We have no historical database of presidential untruth on which to rely to make detailed comparisons, but it is certain that Trump’s rate of falsehood is beyond anything ever seen in the White House. Armed with Twitter and a mad and malignantly narcissistic penchant for twisting facts and truth in accord with his own ever-shifting sense of what serves his interests and hurts his perceived foes, this monstrosity is gaslighting the last flickering embers of civic democracy at a velocity that would make Goebbels green with envy.

Keeping up with Trump’s erroneous and duplicitous statements is exhausting work, hazardous to one’s own sanity. Just as depressing as Trump’s serial fabrication and invention is the apparent willingness of tens of millions of ostensibly decent and honest ordinary Americans to tolerate, dismiss or even believe the endless stream of nonsense and bullshit.

Still, if much of the populace has become inured to presidential lying and misstatement, it’s hardly all the current president’s fault.

Deception and misstatement are “as American as Cherry Pie” (to quote H. Rap Brown on violence)—though here perhaps I should say “as American as George Washington’s childhood cherry tree fable.”

While we’ve never seen anything on Trump’s psychotic scale, the problem of U.S. presidential deception goes way back in American history.

Eager for a back-door pretext to enter the war against German fascism (a good thing in the opinion of many), for example, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt lied to Congress and the American people when he claimed that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was “unprovoked” by the U.S. and a complete “surprise” to the U.S. military.

President Dwight Eisenhower flatly lied to the American people and the world when he denied the existence of American U-2 spy plane flights over Russia.

President John F. Kennedy lied about the supposed missile gap between the United States and the Soviet Union. And Kennedy lied when he claimed that the United States sought democracy in Latin America, Southeast Asia and around the world.

President Lyndon Johnson lied on Aug. 4, 1965, when he claimed that North Vietnam attacked U.S. Navy destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. This provided a false pretext for a massive escalation of the U.S. war on Vietnam, resulting in the deaths of more than 50,000 U.S. military personnel and millions of Southeast Asians.

Regarding Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg recalled 17 years ago that his 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers exposed U.S. military and intelligence documents “proving that the government had long lied to the country. Indeed, the papers revealed a policy of concealment and quite deliberate deception from the Truman administration onward. … A generation of presidents,” Ellsberg noted, “chose to conceal from Congress and the public what the real policy was. …”

President Richard Nixon lied about wanting peace in Vietnam (his agent, Henry Kissinger, actively undermined a peace accord with Hanoi before the 1968 election) and about respecting the neutrality of Cambodia. He lied through secrecy and omission about the criminal and fateful U.S. bombing of Cambodia—a far bigger crime than the burglarizing of the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate complex, about which he of course famously lied.

The serial fabricator Ronald Reagan made a special address to the nation in which he lied by saying, “We did not—repeat—we did not trade weapons or anything else [to Iran] for hostages, nor will we.”

President George H.W. Bush falsely claimed on at least five occasions in the run-up to the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War that Iraqi forces, after invading Kuwait, had pulled babies from incubators and left them to die.

President Bill Clinton shamelessly lied about his White House sexual shenanigans with Monica Lewinsky. He falsely claimed to be upholding international law and to be opposing genocide when he bombed Serbia for more than two months in early 1999.

The serial liar George W. Bush and his administration infamously, openly and elaborately lied about Saddam Hussein’s alleged Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” and about Iraq’s purported links to al Qaida and the 9/11 jetliner attacks. After the WMD fabrication was exposed, Bush falsely claimed to have invaded Iraq to spread liberty and democracy.

Bill Clinton (subject of a useful Christopher Hitchens book titled “No One Left to Lie To”) and Barack Obama were both silver-tongued corporate-neoliberal Wall Street and Pentagon Democrats who falsely claimed to be progressive friends of working people and the poor. President Obama lied repeatedly, as when he falsely claimed that he would have his Department of Justice investigate and prosecute abusive lenders for cheating and defrauding ordinary homeowners. Obama misrepresented the facts badly when he repeatedly claimed (in what PolitiFact determined to be “The Lie of the Year” in 2013) that, under his Affordable Care Act, “If Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.”

In a grotesque lie early in his presidency, Obama’s White House claimed that the carnage caused by its bombing of the Afghan village of Bola Boluk (where dozens of children were blown to pieces by U.S. ordnance) had really been inflicted by “Taliban grenades.”

But presidential lies are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to an American political, media, intellectual and educational culture that has long been drenched in a vast sea of fable, deception, ideological selection and flat-out propagandistic falsification.

Full article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 27, 2018, 02:30:17 pm »


Donald Trump Is America's 🦖🐉🦕 Greatest President

By Michael Harriot

July 26, 2018 Filed to: DONALD TRUMP

As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken, July 26, 1920

If one was to create a sentient being out of America’s past and present, it would look like Donald Trump. It would hate anyone who is not white. It would believe itself to be an infallible “stable genius.” It would hide secrets. It would whitewash its past. It would lie incessantly. It would rip brown babies from their mothers’ arms. It would criminalize Muslims. It would mirror the intellect and sentiment of the vast majority of people who fill the country from sea to shining sea.

Donald Trump is America.


Rick Perry 🦕, Trump’s Secretary of Energy, became famous after stating his desire to eliminate the Department of Energy.

Like this country, Donald Trump 🦀 is a mirage. His greatness is a figment of a collective white imagination that envisions a bright, shining star where there is only a dumpster fire.

Full EXCELLENT article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 25, 2018, 06:43:07 pm »

Agnotology: Part six of six parts

Agnotology: Part one of six parts

Agnotology: Part two of six parts

Agnotology: Part three of six parts

Agnotology: Part four of six parts

Agnotology: Part five of six parts

Fox 😈🦕🦖 news Climate change coverage

A truthful image from the UCS about Media propaganda.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 23, 2018, 12:05:59 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The SAME unethical strategy pioneered by the Tobacco bastards CONTINUES TO BE, USED by the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Corporations 🦕🦖 for the last 40 years.  >:(

Agnotology: Part four of six parts

Agnotology: Part one of six parts

Agnotology: Part two of six parts

Agnotology: Part three of six parts

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 22, 2018, 12:16:51 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 21, 2018, 12:15:40 pm »

Agnotology: Part two of six parts

Agnotology: Part one of six parts
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 20, 2018, 02:39:34 pm »

Agnotology The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance

Edited by Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger

What don't we know, and why don't we know it? What keeps ignorance alive, or allows it to be used as a political instrument? Agnotology—the study of ignorance—provides a new theoretical perspective to broaden traditional questions about "how we know" to ask: Why don't we know what we don't know?

The essays assembled in Agnotology show that ignorance is often more than just an absence of knowledge; it can also be the outcome of cultural and political struggles. Ignorance has a history and a political geography, but there are also things people don't want you to know ("Doubt is our product" is the tobacco industry slogan).

Individual chapters treat examples from the realms of

֍ global climate change,

֍ military secrecy,

֍ female orgasm,

֍ environmental denialism,

֍ Native American paleontology,

֍ theoretical archaeology,

֍ racial ignorance,

֍ and more.

The goal of this volume is to better understand how and why various forms of knowing do not come to be, or have disappeared, or have become invisible.

About the author

Robert N. Proctor is Professor of the History of Science at Stanford University and the author of The Nazi War on Cancer (1999) and Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know (1995). Londa Schiebinger is the John L. Hinds Professor of History of Science and the Barbara D. Finberg Director of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University. Her recent books include Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World (2004) and Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering (forthcoming from Stanford).

Two quotes from this book that are popular (found in several other books):


Page 86 - IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.‎
Appears in 66 books from 1969-2008

Page 104 - All scientific work is incomplete — whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.‎
Appears in 62 books from 1950-2008


Agelbert NOTICE: This is one of six posts I will make over the next several days on Agnotology, as excerpted from the excellent book I posted about above.

The purpose is to educate you on how TPTB game us. Feel free to pass these posts on to any naïve friends or family.  People who don't like the mushroom 🍄 treatment need to know how little access to historical truth and scientifically accurate information we actually have in this country>:(

IOW, for centuries, TPTB have had a HABIT of lying both actively and PASSIVELY (keeping information from you!). This has corrupted our culture and impeded scientific progress. It's getting WORSE, not better.   

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 20, 2018, 02:07:23 pm »

Rod Serling: Logic is the enemy and truth is a menace.

There are still lots of GOOD people around resisting EVIL and working to do the will of the Creator of the Universe. The above are examples of good honest people telling the TRUTH. Watch out for those who distort EVERYTHING that is decent and good by calling the evil good and the good evil.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light.
But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! Matthew 6:22-23

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-- the LORD detests them both. Proverbs 17:15

There are those who turn justice into bitterness and cast righteousness to the ground. Amos 5:7

Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted. Habakkuk 1:4

You have wearied the LORD with your words. "How have we wearied him?" you ask. By saying, "All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them" or "Where is the God of justice?" Malachi 2:17

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 18, 2018, 02:12:02 pm »

July 17, 2018 TD ORIGINALS

The Human Cost of Getting Used to Trump 🦀


The Trump 🦀-Sessions border crisis is fiction.

That’s the takeaway from a May 2018 study published in thejournal Criminology by scholars Michael T. Light of the University of Wisconsin and Ty Miller of Purdue University titled “Does Undocumented Immigration Increase Violent Crime?

The researchers wrote:

In reference to public policy, at the most basic level, our study calls into question one of the primary justifications for the immigration enforcement build‐up. Debates about the proper role of undocumented immigrants in U.S. society will no doubt continue, but they should do so in light of the available evidence. For this reason, any set of immigration policies moving forward should be crafted with the empirical understanding that undocumented immigration does not seem to have increased violent crime.

]Acknowledging there are “substantial differences in official reporting rates,” they concluded that “as undocumented immigration increased in recent decades, there was a significant, concomitant decrease in each measure of violent crime.” For the years 1990 to 2014, when undocumented immigration sharply increased, the authors said, “Our findings suggest that undocumented immigration over this period is generally associated with decreasing violent crime.”

The phoniness of the administration’s claim of a huge wave of immigrants overwhelming the border is shown in the latest report from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, the respected independent organization that compiles data on immigration.

Full article:


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 15, 2018, 01:27:49 pm »

When Did You Become Aware Of The Ongoing Collapse of Civilization?

I first became aware that Business as Usual (BAU) was a death sentence for human civilization by reading Counterpunch in the late 1990's.

I continue to be suspicous of the peak oil movement simply because it is a back door defense of massive price hikes in fossil fuels. The very idea that fossil fuels are "precious to civilization" is the height of Orwellian discourse. Yes, they boosted the standard of living for a period of time, but the COST of that boost has been, and increasingly is, degraded democracy, a SEVERELY degraded biosphere, strife, misery, slave wages, more wars, more pollution and eventual collapse. Fossil fuels were NEVER a "free lunch".

I will ALWAYS refuse to accept the BULLSHIT that those massively polluting fossil fuels are "precious" AND "indispensable" to the survival of human civilization.

I refuse to allow the peak oil meme to become a convenient "supply and demand" manufactured artificial scarcity excuse for the Profit over Planet BASTARDS 🐉🦕🦖 😈 👹, who got us into this mess in the first place, to profit even more.


+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 18, 2019, 12:22:20 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
October 18, 2019, 12:14:31 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
October 18, 2019, 07:27:06 am

October 17, 2019, 10:43:35 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 08:01:15 pm

Money by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 07:55:48 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 03:59:58 pm

Welcome! by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:48:34 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:36:28 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 02:45:34 pm