A leaked UK government document warns that under a worst case scenario, 80 per cent of Brits could be infected with the coronavirus and half a million would die.
The document, which was leaked to the Sun newspaper, outlines “the reasonable worst case” outcome in which four fifths of the country to succumb to the virus.
“The current planning assumption is that 2-3 per cent of symptomatic cases will result in a fatality,” states the document, meaning that 500,000 would die.
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care emphasized that such numbers were a worst case scenario and “this does not mean we expect it to happen.”
Earlier today, more than 300 staff members of American oil company Chevron were evacuated from a building in London’s Canary Wharf after an employee returning from an infected country reported flu symptoms.
There are currently only 13 confirmed cases of coronavirus in England, although the World Health Organization just warned countries outside of China that they were “simply not ready” for the spread of the virus.
“It can get ready very fast, but the big shift has to be in the mindset,” said Dr Bruce Aylward, the WHO’s China envoy.
For the first time, more new cases have been reported in countries outside of China than inside, with 411 inside China and 427 outside.
The WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the sudden rise in coronavirus cases in Italy, Iran and South Korea was “deeply concerning.”
As we highlighted yesterday, despite the rapid spread of the virus in Italy, EU officials have refused to consider closing the borders.
* * *
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Emergency Survival Foods – delicious dishes & a 25 year shelf life!
Erdogan’s Nightmare: 3 Turkish Drones Shot Down In 24 Hours Over Syria & Libya
The Turkish Air Force had a very bad last 24 hours, reportedly losing an unprecedented total of three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) over Syria and Libya.
Turkish President Erdogan attents to roll out of a new fleet of high tech drones, file image.
First, a large Turkish military drone was downed over south Idlib on Tuesday. The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported, “A unit of the army shot down a drone for the Turkish regime forces in the Dadekh region in the southeastern countryside of Idlib.”
A large Turkish drone was downed by the Syrian Army Tuesday in south Idlib countryside:
Hours later, pro-Haftar forces in Libya announced they had shot down a Turkish aircraft which took off from Mitiga International Airport in Tripoli, and also published video of the crash site.
The following morning on Wednesday, independent Libyan news sources reported Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) had shot down yet a second Turkish UAV over Tripoli, marking the third downed Turkish aircraft between the Idlib and Libyan conflict theaters.
Pro-LNA media accounts used the opportunity to mock the Turkish military, which has had a deepening presence in Libya defending the Tripoli Government of National Accord (GNA).
“The short life of a Turkish UAV. The worst record ever of any UAV in military history,” one prominent LNA military account said, accompanied by a prior file photo of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan writing his signature on a multi-million dollar drone similar to the type that was downed.
A photoshopped image of Erdogan kneeling down to “sign” the newly crashed drone was placed by the original photo in the social media post.
This comes as Turkey is suffering mounting troop loses in both Idlib and Libya. In rare statements Erdogan admitted to reporters Tuesday, “We have two martyrs there in Libya.”
Published footage of the second Turkish drone downed in Libya Wednesday:
However, international reports suggest the true death toll could be much higher, with Haftar’s LNA claimingat least 16 Turkish soldiers have been killed in fighting.
Turkish casualties have been mounting in Syria’s Idlib as well. Though numbers are disputed, Turkish media has cited at least a dozen killed.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday Erdogan issued Syrian and Russian forces another threat and ultimatum. “We will not step back in Idlib. We are not the guests in this realm, we are the hosts,” he told a meeting of his AK party on Wednesday.
Amid prior threats to ramp up Turkish military presence in the northwest Syrian province, which pro-Assad forces are attempting to recapture from al-Qaeda factions which have for years occupied the region, Erdogan said Assad forces have until “the end of the month” to pull out.
The number of children who rob other children has increased by 100% in only four years, according to a new study by Swedish police about reported violent crimes in which children under the age of 15 are both the victims and the perpetrators.
In 2016, there were 1,178 robberies against children under 18 years of age. In 2019, the number had increased to 2,484. The number of violent crimes where the suspect is a child under 15 years of age has also gone up dramatically: In 2015, there were 6,359 reported violent crimes where the suspect was a child under 15. In 2019, that number had increased to 8,719 reported violent crimes.
The crimes involve “Violence to the head, kicks, gun threats, burning with lighters, threats to kill, threats to bomb the school, stabbings with food knives, bites and children who have been scratched, dragged, thrown and locked up by other children”.
The lowest age of a suspected perpetrator was seven. There has also been an increasing number of girl gangs. One girl was violently assaulted by a gang of five girls who kicked her, beat her and spat at her. The girl said she thought she was going to die.
“It’s ordinary children who are robbed on their way to and from school, they are called ‘whore’ and told that they’re going to get a Glock in the mouth. I think we are letting the kids down”, said regional police chief Carin Götblad.
Crimes committed by children under 15 years of age are not investigated by the police; they are left to the social workers. “When we get [such cases], we send [them] to [the social workers] and then it goes a little under the radar. This is not something we have discussed before,” said Götblad, who criticized municipalities for not taking crimes committed by children seriously enough.
“I think there is an inherent reflex to ignore it because it’s not very nice, but then we who are professionals need to look at this in particular and raise awareness. I am terribly worried about all vulnerable victims of crime,” Götblad said.
“The suspects are also victims in some sense, but this is still something we have to deal with, that children also commit crimes”.
According to Götblad, parents are afraid to report the crimes committed by other children against their children.
“Parents are afraid of threats and harassment of their children”,said Götblad. “It’s really important to report, [but] at the same time I can’t say I don’t understand their fear”.
The parents may not only be motivated by fear, but by an unwillingness — or inability — of Swedish authorities to help them and ensure the safety of their children — a basic duty of authorities everywhere.
In August 2019, 13-year-old Filip and his family had no other choice than to move from the city of Uppsala after a gang of minors made his life there unbearable. He was abused, robbed and his life was threatened by gangs, with Swedish authorities telling him not to report it to the police as this would make things “worse” for him. The police even told the family that moving was their best option.
When authorities fail to honor their responsibilities, lawlessness results. This is visible in all of Swedish society, not only with respect to children.
Recently, children found explosive material hidden in a sandbox in the Sorgenfri elementary school in the city of Malmö,according to Sveriges Radio. It is still unclear who put them there.
Last year there were 257 reports of explosions — including attempted explosions — an increase of 59% compared to 2018, according to SVT Nyheter. Yet, only seven people have been convicted for any of those 257 crimes. In 2020, at least 10 explosions have already taken place.
In addition to the rise in crimes against children and the rise in explosions, the number of reported rapes against women also increased by 10% in 2019, compared to the previous year, with a total of 4,670 reported rapes. The number of reported rapes against men has also soared by 35% to 260 reported cases. Reported rapes against children remained unchanged at around 3,400.
As previously noted by Gatestone Institute, this summer, a private foundation, Det Goda Samhället (“The Good Society”) published a report based on statistics from Swedish authorities. The report showed:
“For the first time now, more crimes – in absolute terms – are committed by persons of foreign background than by persons of Swedish origin…
The most crime-prone population subgroup are people born [in Sweden] to two foreign-born parents”.
According to Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, however, Sweden’s problems with gang violence would supposedly have been the same without immigration. When asked in November 2019 about the links between mass immigration and gang violence, Löfven refused any connection, while indirectly acknowledging, in a somewhat self-contradictory manner, that gang violence is an imported problem:
“We didn’t use to have this kind of [gang] violence then but now we have it… The segregation is because there is too low employment and too high unemployment in these areas. But that would have been the same regardless of who had lived there. If you would put people born in Sweden in the same conditions, you would get the same result.”
Discrimination against China and Chinese people have erupted since the Covid-19 outbreak in January. Anxieties are high as many are avoiding Chinatowns across the world for fear, they might contract the deadly virus.
From Australia to New York City to Toronto to England to San Francisco, Chinatowns in many regions of the world have transformed into ghost towns. We noted this phenomenon last week.
Lily Zhou, 39, who owns a Shanghai-style restaurant in Australia’s Chinatown, told Bloomberg her food sales had crashed 70% since late January, which is around the time the virus started making headlines. She said her operation can withstand another few months of low traffic, and then after that, she would have to close down.
At 99 Favor Taste in Manhattan, store manager Echo Wu said traffic volume has plunged by a third since the virus started making headlines. Wu said depressed sales could begin impacting the long-term outlook for the restaurant. He believes people are irrational, and the media has drummed up Sinophobia.
“They may have a bias toward Chinese restaurants now,” He said. “I hope people can be more reasonable. After all, there are no cases in town yet.”
Dinner time in Chinatown and the restaurants are near empty! What’s going on?
There are no confirmed cases of #coronavirus in NYC, but just the fear of it is sending customers into a panic. Merchants in lower Manhattan, Brooklyn and Flushing are suffering.@abc7nypic.twitter.com/ipRTkgBxc8
The Rol San Restaurant in Toronto’s Chinatown has seen sales slump by at least 30% in the last month. Bloomberg asked the manager if the virus is driving Sinophobia, he replied: “Of course.”
Other restaurants in Toronto’s Chinatown have experienced a slowdown in patrons. Streets are bare, and a nearby supermarket to Rol San has seen traffic halved since the end of last month.
Chinatown in Manchester, England, has seen a 40% decline in its customer base, many of which are Chinese students. “There are fewer visitors, fewer customers. They’re really, really suffering — at the moment we haven’t come up with any solution yet,” Raymond Chan of the local business association said.
As for the oldest and most established Chinatowns in the US, which is in San Francisco, the streets are deserted as people avoid the area for fear of contracting the virus. Henry Chen, 56, owner of the AA Bakery & Cafe on Stockton Street, said his business fell 30% since the virus outbreak in China and confirmed US cases started to tick higher earlier this month. “There are fewer people on the street,” he said. “Lunch, dinner, breakfast, there is no business.”
The plunge in traffic to Western Chinatowns is nothing compared to paralysis that has developed in China’s economy. More than 700 million people are in lockdown in dozens of towns, manufacturing hubs are shuttered, and retail stores remain closed.
However, in Sydney’s Lower North Shore, and Eastwood in the north-west, which has a sizeable Chinese population, stores are thriving and selling out of face masks.
“It is crazy!” the Phoenix health and beauty store assistant manager Ruby Han told Bloomberg, referring to the demand for virus masks, hand sanitizers, and alcohol swabs.
“It’s like every 10 minutes people will come to check — ‘Do you have some masks? Do you have some masks?'” she said. “To be honest, we can’t handle it because the demand is just too high.”
AuMake International Ltd. said online sales for masks have exploded: “This is a once in a decade, or two decades, event,” said Executive Chairman Keong Chan. “We know with Chinese New Year, we anticipate a fairly decent amount of sales, and it is way more than that. I can only conclude that the virus is a huge part of that.”
The same is being said at a pharmacy inside the Dragon City Mall in Toronto: “We probably used to sell about 100 masks a week, now we sell north of 700” despite lower foot traffic, said pharmacist Timothy Tran, 57.
With the virus not yet under control, restaurant owners in many Chinatowns across the world could soon shutter their doors as Sinophobia fears have resulted in plunging sales.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
The national deficit (the difference between what the government spends and the revenue it takes in) is projected to surpass $1 trillion every year for the next 10 years.
Folks, if you haven’t figured it out yet, we’re not living the American dream.
We’re living a financial nightmare.
The U.S. government—and that includes the current administration—is spending money it doesn’t have on programs it can’t afford, and “we the taxpayers” are the ones who will pay for it.
Could it happen here? Could the government actually seize private funds for its own gain?
Look around you.
It’s already happening.
In the eyes of the government, “we the people, the voters, the consumers, and the taxpayers” are little more than pocketbooks waiting to be picked.
Consider: The government can seize your home and your car (which you’ve bought and paid for) over nonpayment of taxes. Government agents can freeze and seize your bank accounts and other valuables if they merely “suspect” wrongdoing. And the IRS insists on getting the first cut of your salary to pay for government programs over which you have no say.
We have no real say in how the government runs, or how our taxpayer funds are used, but we’re being forced to pay through the nose, anyhow.
We have no real say, but that doesn’t prevent the government from fleecing us at every turn and forcing us to pay for endless wars that do more to fund the military industrial complex than protect us, pork barrel projects that produce little to nothing, and a police state that serves only to imprison us within its walls.
If you have no choice, no voice, and no real options when it comes to the government’s claims on your property and your money, you’re not free.
It didn’t take long, however—a hundred years, in fact—before the American government was laying claim to the citizenry’s property by levying taxes to pay for the Civil War. As the New York Times reports, “Widespread resistance led to its repeal in 1872.”
Determined to claim some of the citizenry’s wealth for its own uses, the government reinstituted the income tax in 1894. Charles Pollock challenged the tax as unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor. Pollock’s victory was relatively short-lived. Members of Congress—united in their determination to tax the American people’s income—worked together to adopt a constitutional amendment to overrule the Pollock decision.
On the eve of World War I, in 1913, Congress instituted a permanent income tax by way of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and the Revenue Act of 1913. Under the Revenue Act, individuals with income exceeding $3,000 could be taxed starting at 1% up to 7% for incomes exceeding $500,000.
It’s all gone downhill from there.
Unsurprisingly, the government has used its tax powers to advance its own imperialistic agendas and the courts have repeatedly upheld the government’s power to penalize or jail those who refused to pay their taxes.
Irwin A. Schiff was one of the nation’s most vocal tax protesters. He spent a good portion of his life arguing that the income tax was unconstitutional, and he put his wallet where his conscience was: Schiff stopped paying federal taxes in 1974.
Schiff paid the price for his resistance, too: he served three separate prison terms (more than 10 years in all) over his refusal to pay taxes. He died at the age of 87 serving a 14-year prison term. As constitutional activist Robert L. Schulz noted in Schiff’s obituary, “In a society where there is so much fear of government, and in particular of the I.R.S., [Schiff] was probably the most influential educator regarding the illegal and unconstitutional operation and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code. It’s very hard to speak to power, but he did, and he paid a very heavy price.”
It’s still hard to speak to power, and those who do are still paying a very heavy price.
All the while the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little thought for the plight of its citizens.
To top it all off, all of those wars the U.S. is so eager to fight abroad are being waged with borrowed funds. As The Atlantic reports, “For 15 years now, the United States has been putting these wars on a credit card… U.S. leaders are essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”
If Americans managed their personal finances the way the government mismanages the nation’s finances, we’d all be in debtors’ prison by now.
Still, the government remains unrepentant, unfazed and undeterred in its money grabs.
While we’re struggling to get by, and making tough decisions about how to spend what little money actually makes it into our pockets after the federal, state and local governments take their share (this doesn’t include the stealth taxes imposed through tolls, fines and other fiscal penalties), the police state is spending our hard-earned tax dollars to further entrench its powers and entrap its citizens.
That translates to roughly $23,000 per taxpayer to wage wars abroad, occupy foreign countries, provide financial aid to foreign allies, and fill the pockets of defense contractors and grease the hands of corrupt foreign dignitaries.
Mind you, that staggering $6 trillion is only a portion of what the Pentagon spends on America’s military empire.
In this way, the military industrial complex will get even richer, and the American taxpayer will be forced to shell out even more funds for programs that do little to enhance our lives, ensure our happiness and well-being, or secure our freedoms.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?
This is still no way of life.
Yet it’s not just the government’s endless wars that are bleeding us dry.
We’re also being forced to shell out money for surveillance systems to track our movements, money to further militarize our already militarized police, money to allow the government to raid our homes and bank accounts, money to fund schools where our kids learn nothing about freedom and everything about how to comply, and on and on.
Are you getting the picture yet?
The government isn’t taking our money to make our lives better. Just take a look at the nation’s failing infrastructure, and you’ll see how little is being spent on programs that advance the common good.
We’re being robbed blind so the governmental elite can get richer.
This is nothing less than financial tyranny.
“We the people” have become the new, permanent underclass in America.
It’s tempting to say that there’s little we can do about it, except that’s not quite accurate.
There are a few things we can do (demand transparency, reject cronyism and graft, insist on fair pricing and honest accounting methods, call a halt to incentive-driven government programs that prioritize profits over people), but it will require that “we the people” stop playing politics and stand united against the politicians and corporate interests who have turned our government and economy into a pay-to-play exercise in fascism.
We’ve become so invested in identity politics that label us based on our political leanings that we’ve lost sight of the one label that unites us: we’re all Americans.
The powers-that-be want to pit us against one another. They want us to adopt an “us versus them” mindset that keeps us powerless and divided.
Trust me, the only “us versus them” that matters anymore is “we the people” against the police state.
We’re all in the same boat, folks, and there’s only one real life preserver: that’s the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution starts with those three powerful words: “We the people.”
The message is this: there is power in our numbers.
That remains our greatest strength in the face of a governmental elite that continues to ride roughshod over the populace. It remains our greatest defense against a government that has claimed for itself unlimited power over the purse (taxpayer funds) and the sword (military might).
This holds true whether you’re talking about health care, war spending, or the American police state.
While we’re on the subject, do me a favor and don’t let yourself be fooled into believing that the next crop of political saviors will be any different from their predecessors. They all talk big when they’re running for office, and when they get elected, they spend big at our expense.
Thousands Of US Troops Return To Saudi Base After 17-Year Absence To “Deter Iran”
After a nearly 17 year absence, US troops have returned Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan Air Base. The last time the base, which lies about 60 miles outside of Riyadh, saw an American presence was in 2003, after which the troops moved to Qatar.
The American troop surge into the gulf region to curtail Iran continues even as the world is focused on the coronavirus pandemic, which appears to be spreading in the Middle East.
While the Pentagon focuses on “deterring Iran,” the Islamic Republic is busy dealing with a very different and more immediately devastating threat. Coronavirus has killed 19 Iranians among 139 confirmed to be infected, as we reported earlier, and one lawmaker has claimed that the true death toll is actually much higher.
An F-22 Raptor at Prince Sultan Air Base, via World Defense.
The prior US abandonment of the base was in large part because the US soldiers stationed in the strict Islamic kingdom became a “huge recruiting device for al Qaida,”according to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In the decade prior it had been a key base for US forces starting after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
“We face a thinking enemy that is playing a real regional conflict for keeps, and they’re very good,” Gen. John Walker, the commander of the 378th Air Expeditionary Wing at the base, told The Wall Street Journal of the return of some 2,500 US troops to the base.
They will reportedly man Patriot missile batteries stationed there, and F-15 fighter jets will operate out of the air base.
Despite the kingdom’s US-supplied anti-air defenses appearing to have failed during the Sept.14 drone and missile attack allegedly out of Yemen, US defense officials now say they’re confident in Patriot missile systems’ ability to intercept any inbound threats.
Prince Sultan Air Base. Image source: The Wall Street Journal
U.S. defense officials now say they have shored up Saudi air defenses to the extent that they could prevent an airstrike like the one in September, thanks in part to the deployment of four American Patriot missile batteries in Saudi Arabia, including two stationed at Prince Sultan. Yet defense officials acknowledge that Patriot missiles, which cost millions of dollars, are an expensive tool to parry cheaper cruise missiles or drones.
But there remains the question of whether they can defend against smaller “drone swarms” — given that as the report notes the Patriots were designed to protect against more sophisticated missiles. Yemen’s Houthis, for example, would likely deploy both primitive or locally made, as well as possibly more advanced Iranian-supplied rockets and drones.
Meanwhile, infrastructure at the newly reestablished Prince Sultan Air Base appears rudimentary at this point: “At the moment, the American encampment at Prince Sultan remains a basic outpost. The Saudis have built a road to service the American section of the base, while the Americans are installing electricity for new tents, and replacing some tents with trailers,” the WSJ observes.
* * *
But again, as Washington builds up forces in the Middle East, it could be the exact wrong time for such a surge, also given Iran is surely preoccupied with more pressing matters:
All smears are boomerang smears. That is why anyone worth a damn does not engage in it. That goes for the Russia-Gaters, the left/right smears on Gabbard, the years of left/right smears on Assange, the attacks on the Green Party and now the Russia narrative attacks on Sanders. Falling into line with the secret police will not save anyone. Red Scares target dissenters and promote war. Isn’t the history clear enough?”
Of course, the role played by the preposterous Russiagate conspiracy theory has always been the same: to be a distraction from issues that really matter. At best, it makes a mountain out of molehill. At worst, it’s straight up political psy-op.
For those just tuning in, a re-cap:
In 2016, Wikileaks released a cache of emails from a Democratic National Committee (DNC) server. The electronic correspondence revealed numerous unsavory and unethical activities, among them that the party had been rigging the primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders from the beginning, and that the Clinton campaign was deceptively funneling money from state parties into her national coffers. Various details of these and other shady endeavors were confirmed by other sources, including Donna Brazille, a party chairperson who personally leaked CNN debate questions to Clinton before the event, and ended up fessing up to it later.
Given the graft-ridden history of US politics, none of this was particularly grievous, honestly speaking, but honestly speaking about it was the last thing the DNC leadership wanted to do, so, with the cooperation of much of the corporate media, they aimed their considerable firepower against Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange. That’s what’s called “shooting the messenger.”
Clinton had already made it clear that it was her policy to up US antagonism against Russia, so it wasn’t long before that nation was accused of “hacking” the DNC servers and turning the trove over to Wikileaks in order to hurt Clinton and thereby help Trump. Never mind that the most credible evidence pointed to an inside job—a leak, not a hack—with the responsible party therefore being some US American, not a Russian. Also never mind that claiming the information would negatively affect Clinton was up front admitting that it was incriminating.
Not about to let something as minor as facts or actual culpability get in the way, the DNC and their media allies pushed the “Russia!” narrative hard, especially after Clinton’s election day loss—anything to avoid admitting their own mistakes, such as the lack of campaigning or get-out-the-vote efforts in the key “swing” states that Trump narrowly won. Over the course of the next few months, one shrill accusation after another was blared in screaming headlines, only to be quietly walked back within a day or a few. But accuracy was never important; the goal was to create an impression: that the aberration of Trump could only be explained by the nefarious meddling of those pesky Russkies, not something more mundane and far more likely such as good old fashioned voter suppression. Roundly ignored was the work of investigative journalist Greg Palast in detailing just such malfeasance on a widespread basis—including 60,000 votes not counted in Democrat stronghold Detroit, in a state that Trump won by less than 11,000 votes.
But the cooperation of the corporate media was not enough. Non-corporate, independent media—which could call attention to the truth—needed to be squashed as well. Here the internet giants, such as Google, YouTube and Facebook, patriotically stepped up and began censoring outlets and authors across the political spectrum, both by de-platforming them and by burying them in the noise with algorithms. The excuse was fighting so-called “fake news.” Many well-known leftist websites experienced double-digit percentage declines in readership when these new policies were applied. Nor have the restrictions been lifted since then; rather they have been constantly honed, and the reach of many alternative voices continues to be eroded. It’s all been very Orwellian.
The “Russia!” narrative seemed to fizzle out after former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s investigation failed to turn up more than a few dubious crumbs. Are we supposed to believe the election was swung by a Russian troll farm purchasing $100,000 in Facebook ads, only some of which were actually political? If you’re willing to buy that, I’ve got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn…
In the meantime, the Trump administration had been executing a no-holds-barred attack on virtually every environmental and safety regulation of the last fifty years—including those pertaining to clean air, clean water, and endangered species—with virtually no news coverage or pushback. These are actions with very real consequences, potentially including extinction. Is it possible that some species of plants or animals might die from this planet because the DNC and the corporate media chose to focus on a conspiracy theory instead of the very real policies of the Trump administration? Yes, and that makes me livid.
These policy changes have still not received the attention they deserve, by the way, because “Russia!” was followed by “Impeachment!” and now “Primaries!”
What if every social media post about “Russia!” had instead focused on climate change? Or the opening of public lands to resource extraction? Or the gutting of the National Environmental Policy Act? Most people probably don’t even know what that last one is, which is sad. These are issues of immense importance, but they’ve gotten totally short shrift.
And this is where it’s not just about the DNC and their corporate media stooges: it’s about all the people who fell for it and helped spread it around; the people who were not merely gullible, but who were eager to lap up whatever they were served and spit it out again on command; the people for whom “America” was already “great” and who were shocked by Trump’s popularity.
I wasn’t shocked. I’m from Nebraska, and though I was as surprised as anyone that Trump squeaked through on election night, I was not mystified about his appeal. I didn’t need a fairy tale to explain his following. Watching him give his victory speech, I was like, “Yep, I know that guy, and I know the people who like him, and I see why they do.” (I got out of Nebraska as soon as I could!)
But liberal urbanites don’t get that, and they needed an explanation of how His Deplorableness could possibly have won. Hence the psychological attractiveness of the Russiagate narrative: it claimed that the force that propelled him to victory was not “American”; it came from outside. The nation’s deeply ingrained, widespread racism and patriarchy—of which Trump was merely an expression—could be papered over. “We’re better than this,” people could reassure themselves. Yeah, you wish.
A teachable moment came and went. An opportunity for self-examination was passed over. A mirror was held up, but the gaze was quickly averted.
That Trump is as “American” as apple pie was too much to consider.
The new McCarthyism that accompanied Russiagate has exacted a terribly corrosive effect on political and social discourse, besides the damage it has incurred on alternative media.
Anyone disagreeing with the mainline neoliberal Democratic agenda runs the risk of being slandered as a “Russian bot,” “Russian asset,” “Putin puppet” or something else equally as asinine. Maligning dissent—or even merely progressive ideas—with this childish name-calling has become a casual liberal pastime. The range of discussion, which was already far too narrow, has constricted further. Right at a time when the dire state of the planet’s ecosystem and the ability of humans to survive within it requires creativity and big ideas, we’ve been subjected to smack-downs and small-mindedness. It’s enraging, frankly.
So here’s Bernie Sanders, who—realistically—is far from radical, and whose proposed policies fall desperately short of what is needed. But because he’s an FDR capitalist rather than a Clinton capitalist—no, he’s not a socialist—is being maligned by the establishment as if he’s Che Guevara come back from the dead. If only!
The naked antipathy of the DNC and their corporate media shills for Sanders is a sight to behold. They are applying no veneer of impartiality to their smears. It was only a matter of time before “Russia!” was screeched in his direction. The fact that the attack came as a one-two punch from the New York Times and the Washington Post on the eve of the Nevada caucus betrayed its top-down coordination. As has been typical of stories in this genre, hypey headlines are paired incongruously with incoherent articles that fail to support the case. But it doesn’t matter. Again, it’s all about emotional impressions. Edward Bernays wrote the original playbook a century ago, and nothing’s changed except the delivery systems. It’s called propaganda.
Alas, Sanders’ response did nothing to question the false premise of Russiagate, or its toxic effects on discourse, or its irresponsible inflaming of tensions with a nuclear power. If he hasn’t actually been a true believer in the “Russia!” bullshit since the beginning, he’s certainly been giving a damn good impression. But that’s just who he is on subjects of foreign policy: a man of big talk and few principles, all too willing to fold under the pressure of authority, and far too reluctant to challenge the narratives of the establishment. This too, is a teachable moment: If this is the best we can get, then that’s tragic. We need so much more.
So what are we supposed to do?
Well, there’s that old union song, “Which side are you on?” which goes:
“Don’t scab for the bosses,
Don’t listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven’t got a chance
Unless we organize.”
Indeed. Russiagate is just one of their lies and we’ve got to organize. We must remember, too, that we’ve got far, far more common in with the people of Russia than we do with the DNC oligarchs and their compliant media here.
Decoupling Accelerates: Google And Microsoft Shift Production From China
Earlier this month, we mentioned how the Covid-19 outbreak would force companies with high centration of supply chains in China to “rework” operations to other countries to avoid future disruptions.
Nikkei Asian Review confirmed our thoughts on Wednesday when sources said Google and Microsoft, who are currently experiencing supply chain disruptions in China, will shift production of their phones, computers, and other devices to factories in Vietnam and Thailand in the coming months.
Two sources with direct knowledge of the shift said Google would begin production of its Pixel 4A smartphone in northern Vietnam in April. The Pixel 5 will start production in 2H20 in the Southeast Asian nation.
Google asked a manufacturing partner in Thailand to immediately start production of its “smart home” related products, with expected delivery no later than 1H20, one source said.
Microsoft could have production online of its Surface devices, notebooks, and desktop computers in northern Vietnam sometime in 2Q, another two sources said. “The volume in Vietnam would be small at the beginning, but the output will pick up, and this is the direction that Microsoft wants,” a supply chain executive told Nikkei.
Google smartphones and Microsoft computers are mostly manufactured in China. From trade wars to virus impacts, the overreliance and high concentration of supply chains have left both firms in shock after production was recently halted as economic paralysis in China develops factory shutdowns. These firms are learning the hard way of overexposure of a supply chain to one particular geographical region.
“The unexpected coronavirus hit will definitely push electronics builders to further seek production capacity outside their most cost-effective production base of China,” a supply chain executive said. “No one could ignore risks after this. … It’s more than just cost — it’s about the continuity of supply chain management.”
Another source indicated that Google had asked suppliers to send production equipment from China to Vietnam as quickly as possible.
Microsoft also accelerated efforts to shift production to Vietnam after the virus outbreak became more severe earlier this month, the source added.
As we’ve noted, Apple has a tremendous overexposure of their supply chain to China and will find it challenging to shift lines – this means shortages of iPhones and Airpods could be seen in the coming months.
But here’s the dilemma, even if Google and Microsoft move production lines to Vietnam and Thailand, many of the parts used in their products are from China. The next obstacle that both companies have to overcome is finding alternative suppliers.
“It’s reasonable for companies like Google to want to speed up its pace of diversifying from China amid the coronavirus threat, while the trade war remains an uncertainty. But even if the final assembly process is outside of China, suppliers still need to ship some components from the country. … It’s a matter of the supply chain ecosystem, which takes time to rebuild,” IDC tech analyst Joey Yen told Nikkei.
It remains to be seen just how significant the impact of the epidemic on Google and Microsoft will be, but already judging by the supply chain shifts out of China and possible supplier issues that may occur after, it seems the virus impact is going to be a full year problem.
Dr. Barbara Ziv the forensic psychologist who played a key role in the conviction of Harvey Weinstein by testifying as a witness in his trial was recently hospitalized after being hit by a car.
Not much is known about her condition or the circumstances of the incident aside from the fact that she was hit by a car while crossing the street and is in the hospital with multiple broken bones.
Law and Crimenoted that there is no evidence that Ziv’s injuries have anything to do with her role as a witness in the Weinstein trial, but the timing and the fact that Weinstein is notorious for his ruthless intimidation tactics makes the incident suspicious. Weinstein’s reputation led many potential witnesses and even journalists to fear for their lives when dealing with his case.
Ziv took the stand last month as an expert witness in the case against Weinstein where she gave in-depth psychological analysis about why his victims did not initially report the crimes and why survivors of sexual assault will often continue friendships or business relationships with their attackers, especially when that person is extremely powerful and influential as Weinstein was.
“As devastating as sexual assault is, most individuals think, ‘Ok, I can put it behind me. I can move on with my life. I don’t want it to get worse. I don’t want this person who sexually assaulted me to ruin my friendships or put my job in jeopardy. I am just going to put it in a box and forget what happened. I don’t want it to get worse, but they can’t,” Ziv said in court.
Ziv also testified as an expert witness in the case against Bill Cosby.
This week, a jury in New York found Harvey Weinstein guilty on charges of rape and criminal sexual act in the first degree. He was initially supposed to be sent to Rikers Island but ended up being diverted to a local hospital after complaining of chest pains.
YouTube Isn’t A Public Forum: PragerU Loses Conservative Censorship Case
Social media platforms accused of politically biased, selective enforcement policies will be allowed to continue discriminating against conservatives, according to a Wednesday court ruling from the Ninth Circuit court of appeals – which has been heavily criticized for anti-Trump rulings on immigration and other matters.
The court rejected an argument by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager, who claimed that his conservative PragerU videos were receiving unfair treatment by the Silicon Valley behemoth – determining that YouTube, which is owned by Google, is not a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints.
A California federal judge first dismissed the 2017 complaint in March 2018 on the grounds that YouTube isn’t a public forum and can regulate content as they see fit, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision and rejected PragerU’s contention that the site has become a digital-era public forum and its power to moderate content is a threat to fair dissemination of conservative viewpoints on public issues.
“Using private property as a forum for public discourse is nothing new,” writes Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown. “Long before the internet, people posted announcements on neighborhood bulletin boards, debated weighty issues in coffee houses, and shouted each other down in community theaters.“
While those methods seem “quaint” compared to the 400 hours of video uploaded to YouTube each day, the underlying issues don’t change.
“Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,” writes McKeown, adding that both the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent present “insurmountable barriers” to PragerU’s argument. –Hollywood Reporter
“Just last year, the Court held that ‘merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints,” McKeown wrote. “The internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment.”
Prager’s lawsuit focused on YouTube’s so-called Restricted Mode, which slaps age constraints on content, requires viewers to click to watch, and disallows videos from being embedded on websites. The restrictions are aimed at videos containing alcohol, sexual situations, violence and other mature subjects – such as conservative content apparently. Restricted videos are also demonetized, so creators cannot derive income from third-party advertisers.
Creators can appeal restricted mode.
“YouTube does not perform a public function by inviting public discourse on its property,” McKeown added. “To characterize YouTube as a public forum would be a paradigm shift.”
The court notes that both sides made hyperbolic arguments about decisions not in their favor, with PragerU attempting to instill fear about the tyranny of big-tech and YouTube arguing the Internet itself would be undone by government speech regulation.
“While these arguments have interesting and important roles to play in policy discussions concerning the future of the Internet, they do not figure into our straightforward application of the First Amendment,” writes McKeown. “Because the state action doctrine precludes constitutional scrutiny of YouTube’s content moderation pursuant to its Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of PragerU’s First Amendment claim.” –Hollywood Reporter
The 9th Circuit also tossed PragerU’s claim of false advertising.
“YouTube’s braggadocio about its commitment to free speech constitutes opinions that are not subject to the Lanham Act,” reads the decision. “Lofty but vague statements like ‘everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories’ … are classic, non-actionable opinions or puffery.”
