Sunday, May 27, 2018
Political correctness is the last liberal-bourgeois defense against a true emancipatory social & economic movement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_CtXGhuUxs
Mars rocks may harbor signs of life from 4 billion years ago
May 25, 2018
University of Edinburgh
Iron-rich rocks near ancient
lake sites on Mars could hold vital clues that show life once existed there,
research suggests.
Iron-rich rocks near ancient
lake sites on Mars could hold vital clues that show life once existed there,
research suggests.
These rocks -- which formed in
lake beds -- are the best place to seek fossil evidence of life from billions
of years ago, researchers say.
A new study that sheds light
on where fossils might be preserved could aid the search for traces of tiny
creatures -- known as microbes -- on Mars, which it is thought may have
supported primitive life forms around four billion years ago.
A team of scientists has
determined that sedimentary rocks made of compacted mud or clay are the most
likely to contain fossils. These rocks are rich in iron and a mineral called
silica, which helps preserve fossils.
They formed during the
Noachian and Hesperian Periods of Martian history between three and four
billion years ago. At that time, the planet's surface was abundant in water,
which could have supported life.
The rocks are much better
preserved than those of the same age on Earth, researchers say. This is because
Mars is not subject to plate tectonics -- the movement of huge rocky slabs that
form the crust of some planets -- which over time can destroy rocks and fossils
inside them.
The team reviewed studies of
fossils on Earth and assessed the results of lab experiments replicating
Martian conditions to identify the most promising sites on the planet to
explore for traces of ancient life.
Their findings could help
inform NASA's next rover mission to the Red Planet, which will focus on
searching for evidence of past life. The US space agency's Mars 2020 rover will
collect rock samples to be returned to Earth for analysis by a future mission.
A similar mission led by the
European Space Agency is also planned in coming years.
The latest study of Mars rocks
-- led by a researcher from the University of Edinburgh -- could aid in the
selection of landing sites for both missions. It could also help to identify
the best places to gather rock samples.
The study, published in Journal
of Geophysical Research, also involved researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Brown University, California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and Yale University in the US.
Dr Sean McMahon, a Marie
Sklodowska-Curie fellow in the University of Edinburgh's School of Physics and
Astronomy, said: "There are many interesting rock and mineral outcrops on
Mars where we would like to search for fossils, but since we can't send rovers
to all of them we have tried to prioritise the most promising deposits based on
the best available information."
Fishy Business
Picking up a trope conceived
months back, the melodrama of US governance is looking more and more like
Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, with the FBI as the doomed ship Pequod, with
R. Mueller as Captain Ahab and D.J. Trump as the white whale. In the classic
book, of course, the wounded whale finally sends the ship to the bottom, crew
and all (but one), and swims away to the freedom of the deep blue sea.
Forgive the barrage of movie
metaphor, but there’s quite a bit of the 1944 classic Gaslight in
here too — and sure, I’m not the first to notice. In that film, the wicked
Charles Boyer manipulates his wife, played by Ingrid Bergman, into thinking
she’s lost her marbles, in order to cover up his own crimes. That’s how I feel
when I turn to The New York Times every morning — for instance,
today’s edition, with the front-page story Trump
Proxies Drop by Briefings on Use of F.B.I. Informant (which headline
was actually changed on the landing page to Trump’s Lawyer and Chief of
Staff Appear at Briefings on F.B.I.’s Russia Informant).
This mendacious exercise in
manufacturing paranoia seeks to divert the public’s attention from the actual
matter at hand, which is whether the highest higher-ups in the FBI will hand
over documents to congressional committees who demanded them, as they are
entitled to do by the constitution. Trump’s lawyers and General Kelly “dropped
by” to remind the FBI officials that the president, as chief officer of the
executive branch, has instructed the FBI mandarins to comply. In other words,
the Newspaper of Record endeavors to distort the record of events.
That’s disgraceful enough, but they are also abetting what appears more and
more to be a case of mutiny with overtones of sedition.
After many months, the
gaslight is losing its mojo and a clearer picture has emerged of just what
happened during and after the 2016 election: the FBI, CIA, and the Obama White
House colludedand meddled to tilt the outcome and, having failed
spectacularly, then labored frantically to cover up their misdeeds with further
misdeeds. The real election year crimes for which there is actual evidence
point to American officials not Russian gremlins. Having attempted to
incriminate Trump at all costs, these tragic figures now scramble to keep their
asses out of jail.
I say “tragic” because they —
McCabe, Comey, Rosenstein, Strzok, Page, Ohr, et al — probably think
they were acting heroically and patriotically to save the country from a
monster, and I predict that is exactly how they will throw themselves to the
mercy of the jury when they are called to answer for these activities in a
court of law. Of course, they have stained the institutional honor of the FBI
and its parent Department of Justice, but it is probably a healthier thing for
the US public to maintain an extremely skeptical attitude about what has
evolved into a malevolent secret police operation.
The more pressing question is
how all this huggermugger gets adjudicated in a timely manner. Congress has the
right to impeach agency executives like Rod Rosenstein and remove them from
office. That would take a lot of time and ceremony. They can also charge them
with contempt-of-congress and jail them until they comply with committee
requests for documents. Mr. Trump is entitled to fire the whole lot of the ones
who remain. But, finally, all this has to be sorted out in federal court, with
referrals made to the very Department of Justice that has been a main actor in
this tale.
The most mysterious figure in
the cast is the MIA Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who has become the amazing
invisible man. It’s hard to see how his recusal in the Russia matter prevents
him from acting in any way whatsoever to clean the DOJ house and restore
something like operational norms — e.g. complying with congressional oversight
— especially as the Russia matter itself resolves as a completely fabricated
dodge. The story is moving very fast now. The Pequod is whirling around in the
maelstrom, awaiting the final blow from the white whale’s mighty flukes.
US Supreme Court Ordered Desegregation, Now Conservatives Work to Demolish Public Education
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0UV-5Bb9B0
33 House Democrats Just Joined the GOP to Give a Major Gift to Wall Street
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/23/remember-these-names-33-house-democrats-just-joined-gop-give-major-gift-wall-street
Will Europe Stand up to American Pressure?
by Andrey Fomine / May 24th,
2018
Europe has decided to assert
its independence: it will not revise its agreement with Iran and will not
comply with US sanctions. When Washington tore up the Iran deal, that was the
last straw for the European Union. In reality the EU had nowhere left to retreat
— any further capitulation to the Atlanticists’ dictates would render the
entire pan-European project meaningless. Will May 2018 prove to be the turning
point, the moment when the West’s unity began to fracture?
On May 17, 2018, the leaders
of the countries of Europe, together with senior officials from the European
Union, gathered in Sofia, officially to discuss their relations
with the Balkan countries that are candidates for EU membership. But how could
there be any talk of expanding the EU if it is unable to manage its primary
mission — protecting the interests of Europeans? Thus it is unlikely that the
conversation at that informal dinner in the Bulgarian capital was about
anything other than their relations with the US, because Europe is on the verge
of not just a trade war, but a geopolitical conflict with its … Well … with its
what, exactly?
Its senior partner? Ally?
Suzerain? Competitor? In geopolitical terms, the US is without question the boss over the Old World — under the auspices of a
unified West and NATO. It is the American Atlanticists who hold the higher
rank. After WWII, the US used various means of control to seize the reins
in Germany, Italy, France, and other countries in Western and later in Eastern
Europe. Great Britain partnered with them to help keep Europe under control, and
since then — despite any differences that may have arisen between the two
shores of the Atlantic — Europe, even in the form of the European Union, has
generally remained their vassal.
As the project to integrate
Europe gained momentum, continental Europeans felt a growing desire to become
more independent, but Washington and London always kept that situation
well in hand.
Germany’s genuine autonomy and
especially its rapprochement with Russia has clearly been at odds with the
interests of the Atlanticists — and a few years ago, under the pretext of a
“Russian threat,” Europe knuckled under to the anti-Russian
sanctions.
The majority of Europe’s
political class understood that it was beneficial for the EU to have close ties with Russia,
and they have always been looking for a chance to end the confrontation with
Moscow. In order to perpetuate the atmosphere of Russophobia, the Anglo-Saxons even
resorted to staging the provocation with the Skripals, so as to somehow preserve the tension between
Russia and Europe.
It seemed that Europe would
remain under their thumb for the immediate future. Europe’s leaders will wait
to see how the power struggle in the US ends and will try to simultaneously
accommodate themselves to both Trump as well as to the Atlanticist elite that
opposes him. However, recent actions by Washington seem to have prompted some
major changes.
Trump needed the dissolution
of the Iran deal largely for domestic political reasons, but he was prepared to lean
particularly heavily on the Europeans. In accordance with his plans, the
Europeans needed to agree with the US to compel Iran to draw up a new accord
that could be presented as a major victory to the American public. Trump did
not take into account the individual positions of Russia or China, which would
in any case be against a revision of the deal. Apparently inspired by the imaginary success of his Korean offensive (in
which Beijing and Pyongyang created the illusion of a breakthrough for him),
the US president decided that everything would work out fine in this matter as
well. To encourage the Europeans to be more amenable, they were threatened with sanctions. But the Old World balked outright and decided to preserve both
the deal as well as its relationship with Iran.
And the aftermath of the US
pressure on Europe over the Iran deal will now extend far beyond just a
run-of-the-mill misunderstanding between allies.
“Looking at the latest
decisions of President Trump, someone could even think: With friends like that,
who needs enemies? But frankly speaking, Europe should be grateful to President
Trump. Because thanks to him we have got rid of all illusions,” stated the
chairman of the European Council, or in other words, the president of united
Europe, Donald Tusk on May 17, 2018.
And the head of the government
of this united Europe, Jean-Claude Juncker, stated a week earlier that the
European Union needed to take on the role of global leader, because Trump’s
decision to tear up the Iran deal meant that the US “no longer wants to
cooperate” with other parts of the world and was turning away from friendly
relations “with a ferocity that can only surprise us.” In addition, European
countries should do more than simply salvage the agreement with Iran: “We have
to replace the United States, which as an international actor has lost vigor, and
because of it, in the long term, influence.”
So as it turns out, Europe is
not only ready to shoulder the responsibility for its own future — something
which even Angela Merkel has been speaking about for the past year, which
includes providing for its own security — but is also ready to replace the US
as a world leader! Did we actually hear this correctly?
Yes, that’s right. In fact,
they started talking about this in Europe immediately after Donald Trump won
the election more than a year and a half ago. Even then, Trump was declaring
that America should focus on itself and not on the construction of a unified
Atlanticist world, and that for the sake of filling America’s coffers he would
shake down all its partners, enemies, and allies. Europeans, who have grown
used to wielding only limited sovereignty in matters of war and peace, were
suddenly being told that they needed to pay for being protected by the US,
because Trump’s America saw that umbrella as something expendable.
The West’s unity began to fracture.
And although the Atlanticist elite on both sides of the ocean hope that Trump
turns out to be nothing more than a bad dream and that everything will go back
to normal in 2020, the reality is that there is no way the West can regain that
indivisibility. America will rewrite its foreign policy with the goal of
“making itself great again,” regardless of whether or not Trump is in power,
because the hegemon has cracked and America’s more nationalistic elites are
seizing power from the ones who have been playing at being the world’s
policeman.
What is left for the
Atlanticists? Should they make their peace with this or attempt to shift the
Western world’s center of gravity toward Europe? But are there any political
figures in Europe who are capable of taking the lead? They tried to audition
Merkel, but she refused to bite. Tusk or Junker? Macron? They’re all wrong.
There is no solution — and in this environment, relationships among the Western
nations are evolving the way Trump wanted: into a battle between national
states.
Trump sees the EU as a
competitor and he wants to weaken it. When it comes to the Iran deal, what’s
important isn’t even that it’s about Iran, around which Germany and France have
constructed big economic plans, but rather that Europe is simply being ordered
to abandon the idea of protecting its own interests. And also that this is
being done under an utterly contrived pretext. Unlike the introduction of the
anti-Russian sanctions, there are no reasons whatsoever for tearing up that
deal, not even nominal ones.
Europe cannot agree to this.
It would be suicide for the very European Union itself. As Renaud Girard, a columnist for Le Figaro writes: “Now
that such an unheard-of dictate from the US is upon us, will the Europeans be
able to regain their independence? This is a test of truth for the political
dimension of the EU. If the European Union caves to Trump, this will negate any
reason for its existence.”
And the ones talking this way
aren’t just those who have spent the last few years reminding Europe that it is
harming itself by bowing to Washington’s pressure and keeping the anti-Russian
sanctions intact. Now this is the argument being made even by the hardliners on
Moscow — the reliable Atlanticists.
“This is nothing less than a
massive assault on the sovereignty of European states and the European Union.
They are deprived of their right to decide on their policies and actions by
brutal dictates from a foreign — and allegedly friendly — country. This is
utterly unacceptable from a European point of view, as well as a violation of
the preaching of Trump himself. It relegates Europe to just abiding by and
implementing policies with which it profoundly disagrees,” writes former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt in the
Washington Post.
Europe cannot cave in to US
pressure, but it cannot realistically break ties with Washington when rejecting
it, much less lay a claim to the mantle of global leadership. Europe simply
wants more independence, which is already asking a lot, given the current state
of world affairs. To achieve this, Europe needs to develop a more favorable
balance of forces and interests, and when seeking out the building blocks for
this, it naturally turns its gaze toward Moscow.
It just so happens that within
a week the heads of half of the world’s most powerful countries — Germany, France, Japan,
and India — have visits to Russia. Angela Merkel and
Emmanuel Macron were initially planning to talk to Vladimir Putin about a
variety of topics: Syria, trade, Ukraine … But now everything will revolve
around the word “Iran,” which signifies much more than just a country or a
deal. It is rather the choice that Europe is making as we all watch.
Andrew Cuomo is just another corrupt Clinton leftover
The Case Against Cuomo
The corrupt New York
governor’s progressive reputation is a carefully stage-managed illusion.
Since Trump’s election, New
York governor Andrew Cuomo, the son of popular former governor Mario Cuomo, has
positioned himself as a leader of the #Resistance.
When Trump withdrew from the
Paris Accords, Cuomo announced that he was joining with other blue-state
governors “to sustain and strengthen existing climate programs . . .
and implement new programs to reduce carbon emissions.” When Trump decided not
to extend Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in September, Cuomo
urged his constituents to call their representatives and demand support for the
DREAM Act.
Cuomo recruited Bernie Sanders
to stand beside him as he unveiled his Excelsior
Scholarship to New York public colleges, which Sanders called “revolutionary,”
and he regularly reminds voters of his fights to legalize gay marriage
equality, raise the age of criminal liability, and increase the state minimum
wage.
New Yorkers get regular email
notifications from Cuomo touting these moves and expressing the governor’s
outrage at Trump’s misdeeds. But Andrew Cuomo is no Berniecrat. He’s merely
figured out how to manipulate New York state’s opaque, oligarchical political
system to give himself a left-liberal sheen without risking his connections to
his richest donors.
Cuomo’s Three-Card Monte Trick
What Cuomo’s emails don’t
mention are the range of progressive and social-democratic bills that would
effectively shield vulnerable New Yorkers from the worst excesses of the Trump
government, but have died at various stages of the legislative process.
For example, the NY Climate
Change and Community Protection Act (endorsed
by over one hundred labor, community, and environmental groups) would
institute strict emissions controls, publicly invest in renewable energy
sources, and create an estimated one hundred thousand jobs — it’s the
most ambitious climate change law in the entire United States. This bill,
and many others, including the New
York Health Act (which would establish single-payer health care) and the
New York Liberty Act (a state sanctuary law which would protect New Yorkers
from deportation), have passed the New York State Assembly multiple times but
failed to become law.
And though the New York State
Assembly passes some of the most left-wing bills in the country, their failure
to become law is a central part of the Cuomo story and illustrates why New York
progressives love to hate their governor. On paper, New York is a solidly blue
state. Over 60 percent of voters chose Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the
past three presidential elections, and the lower house of the state legislature
has a solid Democratic majority. But a corrupt system of bipartisan collusion
ensures Republican control of the upper chamber — and Cuomo encourages
and benefits from this manufactured partisan split.
It’s an open secret in Albany
that Cuomo is committed to maintaining Republican control of the state senate,
where creative redistricting deliberately gives the upstate GOP minority an
advantage. The governor could have used his veto power over districting maps in
2012, or used some of his vast campaign resources to elect a stronger
Democratic majority in the upper chamber. Instead he has carefully maintained
this structural barrier to the passage of progressive bills.
But gerrymandering alone isn’t
enough to give the Republicans effective power over Albany’s agenda. For that,
we can thank the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC), a group of eight
Democratic senators who broke away from the Democratic caucus to forge a
power-sharing agreement with Republicans. In 2012, after Democrats claimed a
slim majority in the upper house, four of those Democrats — Jeffery Klein,
Diane Savino, David Valesky, and David Carlucci — agreed to caucus with the
Republicans, giving the GOP the majority. Since then, the IDC has doubled in
size and remained loyal to the Republicans.
This arrangement benefits all
the key political players — above all, Cuomo and his presidential ambitions.
Senate Republicans can control
redistricting and enjoy the perks and resources of majority status, including
the ability to control New York state’s over $150 billion budget. IDC members
get pork for their districts, stipends for chairing committees, bigger budgets,
expanded staff and access to big centrist Democratic donors (such as charter
schools, real
estate interests, and hedge funds). Cuomo continues to cut spending and
prevent tax increases (particularly on high incomes and property taxes) to
appease donors, and casts himself as a moderate progressive who gets things
done. Meanwhile, Democrats in the Assembly and Senate can take strong left-liberal
positions on a number of social-democratic bills, like single payer, knowing
full well that the Senate majority leader will never allow it the leave
committee for a floor vote.
The Assembly blames the
Senate. Democratic senators blame the IDC. The IDC blames the Democrats and the
Republicans. And Cuomo is spared the need to veto popular social-democratic
bills like single payer, which would tarnish his image with Democratic primary
voters. This carefully choreographed blame game stymies all attempts by progressive
activists to pass reforms. Meanwhile, millions of New Yorkers, including women,
people of color, school children, low-income families, and the uninsured and
under-insured suffer under Trump’s policies.
The Real Andrew Cuomo
Thanks to this bipartisan
run-around, many of Cuomo’s key victories have been far more hollow than they
might seem. For example, the Excelsior Scholarship program — already criticized
for its extremely strict courseload
and grade requirements and its “last-dollar” structure, requiring
students to use all federal grants and scholarships toward tuition before state
help kicks in — was made even worse by Republican meddling: the GOP added
provisions requiring four years of state residency after graduation, or else
the tuition scholarship reverts to a loan.
Republicans in 2017 also
watered down the Raise the Age law, which was written to bring all sixteen- and
seventeen-year-olds accused of crimes to family courts rather than criminal
courts. But the final Raise the Age bill only redirected misdemeanor cases to
family court, while nonviolent felony cases would go to a “youth section” of
regular criminal court. Those accused of violent felonies will go through
regular criminal courts and thus face the litany of abuses to which the
criminal justice system exposes minors. This failure to “raise the age right”
was heavily
criticized by juvenile justice advocates and black state senators.
Perhaps in his presidential
run Cuomo will claim to have evolved on key issues, as he did when he changed
his stance on fracking. Following the cues of fellow would-be presidential
frontrunners, Cuomo came out in favor of a national
Medicare for All — but if Cuomo really wanted accessible medical care,
the ultra-blue state where he actually has power would already have passed the
New York Health Act.
Indeed, while Cuomo might
blame the Republican senate or IDC for the bill’s failure, he has bragged elsewhere
about his ability to create bipartisan coalitions to pass his pet projects. In
Cuomo’s 2014 political memoir, All Things Possible: Setbacks and Success
in Politics and Life — itself a focus of controversy thanks to its huge
cash advance from the publisher and dismal sales, resulting
in a personal profit of about $250 per book — he discussed his skilled
and effective maneuvering to pass gay marriage in 2011. Cuomo convinced the
reluctant Senate leader at the time to release the bill to a floor vote and
made sure he had sufficient Republican Senate support. On health care,
meanwhile, he’s chosen not to use political capital to be a bold progressive
leader. Cuomo’s timid posture speaks volumes about his actual political
positioning.
The case against Cuomo lies
not only in his association with the unpopular centrist wing of the Democratic
Party, but also in how he governs. Despite claiming a mandate to clean up
Albany, Cuomo functions as “an old school political boss, who exploits and
worsens the most dysfunctional components of NY state politics to make it
worse” according to Bill Samuels, a former friend of the Cuomo family and
founder of Effective NY, which advocates for reform of Albany.
His “three men in a room”
style of state governance perpetuates the oligarchical tendencies of New York
government. He created and quickly shut down a high-powered anti-corruption
body, the Moreland Commission, in 2013 when it became clear that he might
be implicated in the commission’s own inquiries. This became a major
talking point for his 2014 primary challenger, Zephyr Teachout, who surprised
observers by claiming over 35 percent of the primary vote on a “shoestring
budget” and with no institutional support. And just like Hillary Clinton in
2016, Cuomo had a clear
enthusiasm problem, winning votes but little excitement or energy.
Those who vote for Democrats
should avoid repeating the mistakes of Hillary Clinton’s overly confident 2016
campaign. Despite his posturing to the contrary, Andrew Cuomo follows the worst
aspects of the Clinton playbook. According to January 2018 campaign filings,
Governor Cuomo has over $30 million in campaign funds, relying heavily on large
donors. A New York Times analysis of his most recent filing shows
that only 0.2
percent of his donors give less than $200 – testimony to the complete
absence of grassroots excitement or support for Cuomo.
In contrast, the average
contribution was $4,800, with large corporations and real estate interests
providing donations well above $100,000. These real estate donations occurred
through the LLC loophole in NY campaign law, a law that Cuomo himself has
denounced as “egregious.” This
contrasts not only with Bernie Sanders’s extremely successful small donor fundraising
experience, but also the recent moves by mainstream
Democrats to rely more on smaller grassroots donations.
We are currently about a year
away from when candidates will declare their presidential intentions, and Cuomo
will likely continue positioning himself as the #Resistance leader America
needs, as he did in his speech to the New York City Women’s March, and as he
implied by staging his photo-op with Bernie Sanders. But if we want to see what
New York’s governor really thinks of the insurgent left, we should heed his own
words in the concluding chapter of his 2014 memoir. Cuomo rejected economic
populism within the Democratic party as the impulse of an “extreme left” that
seeks to “punitively [raise] taxes on the rich and [transfer] the money to the
poor.” He equated supporters of left redistributive measures — “fueled by
emotion and truly outraged at the unfairness of the system” — with Tea Party
extremists, holding views regarded as foolhardly by sensible, moderate New
Yorkers. He dismissed Occupy Wall Street and its “incendiary, divisive”
rhetoric, seeking to demonize the very wealthy.
No amount of woke-washing can
hide what Cuomo really is: another uninspiring “socially liberal, fiscally
conservative” Clinton leftover.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)