Friday, June 8, 2018

The Democratic Party Cannot Be Reformed








Seen as Undermining Bold Agenda, Progressives Rip Dem Leaders' Embrace of 'Absurd' Pay-Go Rule



"The old guard of this pathetic, impotent party needs to retire or be voted out."







Embracing the kind of deficit phobia frequently deployed by the GOP and corporate Democrats to undercut ambitious goals like Medicare for All, free public college, and a transformative green energy plan, Democratic leaders are vowing to reinstitute"fiscally hawkish" pay-as-you go rules if they retake control of the House in 2018—a move progressives denounced as severely wrongheaded and "actively harmful."

"The pay-go thing is an absurd idea," argued Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, in response to The Hill's report on Wednesday that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) are putting the so-called pay-go policy at the top of their party's agenda for 2019.

"It would be, I think, irresponsible to try to tie up Congress's ability to respond to economic downturns or, in the current discussion, to slash programs," Grijalva added.

Putting the matter more bluntly in an analysis on Wednesday, Splinter's Paul Blest artfully argued Democratic leaders' embrace of the pay-go rule—which would require all spending that adds to the deficit to be offset by program cuts or tax hikes—is a strong indication that "they'll do fuck all to put forward a positive vision for the country they want to run" if they retake the House in 2018.

Others echoed Blest's sharp critique, declaring that the renewed push for pay-go in the midst of growing calls for a bold agenda show that "the old guard of this pathetic, impotent party needs to retire or be voted out."

While pay-go has long been an obsession of the Democratic Party's right-wing Blue Dog Caucus, progressives argue the rule would hamstring the possibility of achieving ambitious and morally necessary policies like Medicare for All, which is soaring in popularity among the American public.

"Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer remain 100 percent committed to losing, and if against all odds they somehow win, doing nothing good with their power," wrote The Intercept's Jon Schwartz, noting that support for a regressive policy like pay-go is a serious strategic mistake.

As Blest notes, pay-go is a particularly absurd policy for Democrats given that Republicans just completely ditched their deficit fearmongering—which was never genuine in the first place—to ram through massive tax breaks for the rich and massive corporations.

"There really is no better time to push bold ideas that actually make a material difference in the lives of people who the government and business have left behind," Blest concluded. "No one gives a sh*t about the deficit anymore, if they ever did at all. It’s long past time for Democrats to stop letting this albatross hang around their necks."




















Opioids Are Responsible For 20% Of Millennial Deaths, "Crisis Will Impact US For Generations












Wed, 06/06/2018 - 23:00


The opioid crisis has become a significant public health emergency for many Americans, especially for millennials, so much so that one out of every five deaths among young adults is related to opioids, suggested a new report.





The study is called “The Burden of Opioid-Related Mortality in the United States," published Friday in JAMA. Researchers from St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, found that all opiate deaths — which accounts for natural opiates, semi-synthetic/ humanmade opioids, and fully synthetic/ humanmade opioids — have increased a mindboggling 292 percent from 2001 through 2016, with one in every 65 deaths related to opioids by 2016. Men represented 70 percent of all opioid-related deaths by 2016, and the number was astronomically higher for millennials (24 and 35 years of age).

According to the study, one out of every five deaths among millennials in the United States is related to opioids. In contrast, opioid-related deaths for the same cohort accounted for 4 percent of all deaths in 2001.

Moreover, it gets worse; the second most impacted group was 15 to 24-year-olds, which suggests, the opioid epidemic is now ripping through Generation Z (born after 1995). In 2016, nearly 12.4 percent of all deaths in this age group were attributed to opioids.


“Despite the amount of attention that has been placed on this public health issue, we are increasingly seeing the devastating impact that early loss of life from opioids is having across the United States,” said Dr. Tara Gomes, a scientist in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s.

“In the absence of a multidisciplinary approach to this issue that combines access to treatment, harm reduction and education, this crisis will impact the U.S. for generations,” she added.

Over the 15-year period, more than 335,000 opioid-related deaths were recorded in the United States that met the study’s criteria. Researchers said this number is an increase of 345 percent from 9,489 in 2001 (33.3 deaths per million population) to 42, 245 in 2016 (130.7 deaths per million population).


“By 2014, Canada and the United States had the highest per capita opioid consumption in the world and deaths related to opioid use have increased dramatically in both countries,” the study stated, which also said, “opioid-related death rates are increasing most quickly among adults aged 25 to 44 years in the United States. Consequently, the public health burden resulting from early loss of life is substantial.”







 
“These numbers show us the dramatic impact of opioid-related harms across all demographics in the U.S.,” said Dr. Tara Gomes, a scientist in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s. “We know this is not an isolated public health issue – it is one that spans across North America.”

All in all, the opioid crisis is much worse than we imagined, as millennials are craving, not just avocados these days - but, vast amounts of opioids inducing a tidal wave of fatal overdoses.





















A 1,000-year flood in Maryland shows the big problem with so much asphalt










By Greta Jochem on Jun 5, 2018




The rain started to fall in Ellicott City, Maryland on the afternoon of May 27. Nearby tributaries of the Patapsco River were already dangerously swollen from last month’s steady precipitation. The storm intensified, and floodwaters soon tore through Ellicott City’s main street, submerging the first floors of buildings, sweeping away cars, and killing at least one person.

The storm was a so-called “1,000 year flood,” meaning it had a 0.1 percent chance of occurring this year. But this “exceptionally rare” event is deja vu for residents — they’re still picking up the pieces from a similar flood that destroyed the area back in July 2016.

After that big flood, Robin Holliday spent months rebuilding her business, HorseSpirit Arts Gallery. She didn’t expect a flood like that to happen again, but she also didn’t think the proposed watershed management plan was strong enough. Discouraged, she started to think about leaving. The recent flood solidified her decision.

So what’s behind the propensity for floods in Ellicott City? Part of the problem is its vulnerable location: the town lies at the foot of a hill where river branches meet the Patapsco River. And, of course, climate change makes storms wetter and increases the frequency of severe, record-breaking weather. But there’s another thing people are pointing out: concrete.

When hard, impermeable concrete replaces absorbent green spaces, it’s much easier for floodwaters to overwhelm stormwater drainage. “That’s what happened in Ellicott City,” says Marccus Hendricks, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation.

In Ellicott City, development has flourished.

“Nearly one-third of the Tiber-Hudson sub-watershed that feeds into historic Ellicott City is now covered by roads, rooftops, sidewalks and other hard surfaces that don’t absorb water,” the Baltimore Sun wrote in 2016.

In a press release, the Sierra Club’s Maryland Chapter called for a stop to development in the Tiber-Hudson watershed: “We may not have control over severe weather events (except by fighting climate change), [but] we can take ownership over the role that development played in this disaster.”

At a recent press conference, a local county official said that Howard County, home to Ellicott City, has been taking steps to prepare for more floods.

“We’re focusing on making sure that what has been approved is being done by the code and by law, making sure that stormwater regulations are being abided by,” said Allan Kittleman, the Howard County executive. Since the flood in 2016, he said the county has designed and engineered more stormwater retention facilities, but larger projects will take time.

This is far from the first time that development and asphalt have had a violent run-in with climate change. Last summer, Hurricane Harvey drenched sprawling Houston with trillions of gallons of water and caused $125 billion in damage. The area saw a 25 percent increase in paved surfaces between 1996 and 2011, according to Texas A&M professor Samuel Brody. Brody found that every square meter of Houston’s pavement cost about $4,000 more in flood damage.

And, rapidly developing or not, our cities are full of these paved surfaces. In the majority of the country, surfaces like pavement or brick make up just 1 percent of the land. Yet in cities, hardscapes account for upwards of 40 percent of land area.

Environmental change coupled with development will likely make this issue one of major national importance, Brody tells Grist.

“Every week, there’s some urbanized area that floods. We look up and say, ‘Oh that’s never happened before and it’s never going to happen again.’ But if you look at the big picture, it’s happening all the time with increasing severity.”























Giuliani as Master Diplomat













JUNE 7, 2018








Former New York Mayor and Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday in Israel:

“Well, somehow North Korea, after he [Trump] canceled the summit because they insulted the vice president, they insulted his national security adviser and they also said that they would go to nuclear war against us, they were going to defeat us in a nuclear war, we said,   ‘Well, we’re not going to have a summit under those circumstances.’ Well, Kim Jong Un got back on his hands and knees and begged for it, which is exactly the position you want to put him in.”

This is as historically accurate at Giuliani’s insistence that Donald Trump never had sex with Stormy Daniels because, well, look at her.

The real history is that, after the summit had been set, National Security Advisor John Bolton (April 29) and Vice President Mike Pence (May 22) both made extremely stupid, ugly, smug statements comparing North Korea to Libya. Bolton suggested that the “Libyan model” of disarmament would apply. This means the model of negotiating disarmament followed by regime change in the newly vulnerable state. It conjures up visions of Muammar Gaddafy’s grotesque demise, which Hillary Clinton so savagely cheered. It was not an inadvertent reference. Bolton has long advocated regime change in North Korea and is probably the most toxic of all the neocons. In the past Pyongyang has called him “human scum” and refused to deal with him as a diplomat. State Department officials have acknowledged that Bolton is attempting to sabotage the summit.

Pence followed up that the Libyan model would only apply if Kim failed to fully denuclearize. “There was some talk about the Libyan model last week, and you know, as the President made clear, this will only end like the Libyan model ended if Kim Jong Un doesn’t make a deal.” Asked if this could be interpreted as a threat, he replied, “Well, I think it’s more of a fact.”

This of course only made things worse. A top official in Pyongyang called Pence a “political dummy” and issued this message:

“Before making such reckless threatening remarks without knowing exactly who he is facing, Pence should have seriously considered the terrible consequences of his words.

It is the US who has asked for dialogue, but now it is misleading the public opinion as if we have invited them to sit with us.

I only wonder what is the ulterior motive behind its move and what is it the US has calculated to gain from that.

We will neither beg the US for dialogue nor take the trouble to persuade them if they do not want to sit together with us.

Whether the US will meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at nuclear-to-nuclear showdown is entirely dependent upon the decision and behavior of the United States.

In case the US offends against our goodwill and clings to unlawful and outrageous acts, I will put forward a suggestion to our supreme leadership for reconsidering the DPRK-US summit.”

Following this, Trump announced the cancellation of the summit, presumably to avoid the indignity of a North Korean announcement. But the North Koreans then unexpectedly issued a message praising Trump’s courage and regretting the cancellation. Plans to conduct the summit were resumed following a high-ranking DPRK official’s visit to the U.S. The North Koreans, fully aware of Trump’s instability and contradictions among his advisors and officials, have no doubt warned Trump that there are people around him who want no deal but rather the overthrow of the Kim regime. Trump has perhaps acknowledged awareness of that, allaying North Korean concerns temporarily.

But then his personal lawyer makes his amazing statement, in a rambling interview in Tel Aviv in which among other things he said sex between Trump and Stormy was impossible due to her appearance. That’s what you’d expect from a (sexist) personal lawyer, as opposed to spontaneous geopolitical analysis offered Israeli journalists.

He attributed the temporary suspension of the Singapore summit to Trump, as a response to North Korean insults (directed to the two top U.S. officials who’ve suggested a Libyan fate for the DPRK) and a nuclear war threat. He depicts Kim Jong-un (in his pronunciation, Kim Yong-un) as groveling before the president begging to get the meeting back on track.

Giuliani’s chuckly garrulousness does not suggest premeditation. He is ignorant of the history and context. He perhaps does not realize that portraying a very proud and powerful man as kowtowing to his boss looks designed to do what Bolton and Pence couldn’t do: sabotage the summit. Talk about an insult.

I think it likely that at any moment Pyongyang might issue a statement calling off the meeting.

Giuliani is not a U.S. government official, but he is a longtime Trump intimate and his personal attorney responding to multiple scandals, making a fool of himself and perhaps not long in his job. Daniels’ lawyer is calling for his firing due to his ridiculous comments about his client. Trump may see him at this point as a liability. His immediate dismissal would be understood and welcomed by the media, which has come to despise the one-time 9/11 hero as a thuggish stooge. More importantly, it could be seen by Kim Jong-un as an expression of regret that someone close to the president had said something so totally, totally stupid, maybe jeopardizing his Nobel.

Giuliani might not know that for centuries Korea sent envoys to the Chinese court where in presenting credentials to the emperor they prostrated themselves (kowtowed) before him. The Chinese emperor thought he was the Son of Heaven, China the Central Country, all the world’s peoples protected by its benevolent leadership. It was appropriate that foreign leaders get on their hands and knees showing deference to him. Korea was for centuries the most important participant in what’s sometimes called the Sinocentric tribute system.

The former mayor’s smirking suggestion that the North Korean leader had gotten down on his hands and knees (“again”—as though he had done so earlier to Trump) has to infuriate the North Koreans. If Giuliani had planned it, he could not have said something more explosive.

There are apparently some very astute, well-informed people in the DPRK Foreign Ministry. They realize chaos reigns in the White House and that if they meet, Kim will engage with a man who’s not all there. Their point is to stoke his vanity to get a deal which avoids war and leads to normalization of relations. But they realize that Trump is surrounded by people who still envision regime change—even at this point, five days before the summit. It will require restraint on Chairman Kim’s part to go through with the planned meeting.


















Giuliani Says Kim Jong-Un Begged Like A Has-Been-Politician-Turned-Hack-Attorney Trying To Get A Job At The White House












 




NEW YORK—Describing the pathetic manner in which the North Korean dictator debased himself while pleading for a meeting with President Trump, Rudy Giuliani claimed Thursday that Kim Jong-un begged like a has-been-politician-turned-hack-attorney trying to get a job at the White House.

“He groveled like a washed-up former mayor who hasn’t been relevant since the early 2000s, begging on his knees for a mid-level position in the Justice Department,” said Giuliani, adding that the pathetic doofus demonstrated a level of self-respect on par with a failed presidential candidate who built his entire career on being in the right place at the right time, babbling incoherently about the relationship between a reality TV star and a pornographic actress.

“I kid you not, this guy was prepared to bow down and kiss Trump’s boots like some cigar-chomping numbskull who actually thought he had a chance at being Attorney General. I mean, the look on his face—it was like a guy who just found out he married his second cousin or got 9 percent of the vote in a Republican primary—just a total, irredeemable jackass.”

At press time, Giuliani was forced to walk back his comments by Trump’s actual lawyer, Emmet Flood.
































The Two-Party Scam










JUN 05, 2018








They are back at it again. The Democrats are peddling change and hope as they promise a “better deal” if only they are entrusted with power. Nancy Pelosi has been touting the newest Democratic National Committee platform while pretending to be outraged about the excesses of Republicans. She promises to empower voters, strengthen ethics laws and fix campaign finance once she regains the speaker’s gavel.


What Pelosi is banking on is that voters are beset by “collective recollection deficit.” Never mind that Democrats had solid majorities in both houses of Congress and did the opposite of what she is now promising. Pay no attention to the fact that Barack Obama had a mandate when he made history in 2008. In a world according to neoliberals, iniquities took root on Jan. 20, 2017—and now all the ills of the world can be traced to Donald Trump.

We are witnessing the tried-and-true tactic of imprisoning voters in the moment. The duopoly continues to thrive because the media-politico establishment has conditioned us to have short-term outrage and disregard the connective nature of the two-party racket. Both parties are co-opted by corporations and the plutocrat class. They differ on the margins, but at their core, Democrats and Republicans’ primary purpose is to transfer wealth from the masses to the neo-aristocracy.

Malcolm X once said that Republicans are like wolves, while Democrats are like foxes. The former show you their teeth and have no problem revealing their mendacity. The latter smile and pretend to be your friends while they stick a shiv in your chest. The Blue Wave is the newest shiv Democrats are sharpening. They will promise the world until the first Tuesday of November, then they will kick their voters to the curb the minute the last vote is counted.

This two-faction scam works only because establishment voices sheepdog the citizenry to accept a binary view of socio-political issues. We are given limited choices and told to vote for one of two equally malicious parties.
There is a reason why over 40 percent of Americans who can otherwise vote refuse to do so. That number seems to go up every election cycle. More and more people are waking up to the ruse and realizing that a ballot limited to two parties is not a republic; it’s a tyranny of false choices.

But for those who say enough to the facade of a representative democracy, over 50 percent remain wedded to the status quo. A system that has been given a vote of no-confidence by abstention is afforded a cover of legitimacy by a league of Charlie Browns who insist on voting against their self-interest. Every two, four, and six years, Lucy van Pelts like Pelosi, Donald Trump and others hold out footballs in the form of false hopes and counterfeit talking points.

Invariably, the football is withdrawn from the bases of both parties as promises are broken and pledges are nullified by dark money and corporate extortion. Parenthetically, do you know how insulting it is to be called “the bases”? The political classes are telling their most loyal voters that their backs are the foundations on which politicians and pundits are building their status and wealth. The illusion of change is the only thing that keeps Americans from rising up against a government comprised mostly of millionaires and controlled by the checkbooks of billionaires. Democrats and Republicans have mastered the art of pointing fingers at each other publicly, only to unite in private to work for their corporate patrons.

Sloganeering and political ads are not governance. We need to focus on ideas and on the policies being implemented in our names. The time has come to stop voting for people based on identities and ideologies. More importantly, to stop endorsing politicians based on affinity and/or political loyalty. Put away emotional decisions, and support people based on whether they will go beyond meaningless speeches and symbolic photo ops to fight for your interests.

The other option is to keep lining up every election cycle to kick Lucy’s football.

We all know how that ends.





























Protest against Netanyahu shuts down Champs-Élysées








https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/protest-against-netanyahu-shuts-down-champs-elysees