Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Bernie Sanders Campaign Manager Faiz Shakir on Skewed Polls, Corporate Media Conflicts






















In 2016, Bernie Sanders’ campaign was akin to a start-up: scrappy, understaffed, and flying by the seat of their pants.


The only difference: most start-ups don’t spark a nationwide movement in just a few months; a movement met with as much negative pushback—from the corporate media and the entire federal, state, and local Democratic Party establishment—than otherworldly love and adoration from millions of believers across the country.


Three-and-a-half years later, Bernie 2.0 is being run by campaign manager Faiz Shakir, 39, a former National Political Director at the American Civil Liberties Union, and the first Muslim-American to run a presidential campaign.


“A lot of the movement that was generated in 2015 and 2016 is still strong and growing stronger, but this time, and this campaign, you’re also seeing far more organization happening earlier in the schedule,” Shakir told Status Coup in an interview.


That organizing includes Sanders’ campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and California—and building up the state-level structures in each one of those states—months earlier than he did in 2016.


“This time around you’re seeing heightened levels of volunteer activity at an earlier point in time which are affirming that the work of 2015 and 2016, which was powerful, remains in place today and is benefiting this campaign—obviously with the goal of having a different result this time around,” Shakir said.


There’s also been heightened levels of criticism, and in some cases, downright smears, coming from corporate media outlets that have a clear disdain for the type of big-scale reform Bernie Sanders stands for.


Shakir noted that elite media journalists are already declaring Sanders campaign dead, which is actually something the campaign feeds off of. But many of these time-of-death pronouncements have been based off of polling that, as Status Coup has reported, has been oversampling voters over the age of 50 while sampling less voters under 50. Unsurprisingly, these polls have found former Vice President Joe Biden having a wide lead over Sanders, who has disproportionate strength among younger voters.


“You’re exactly right,” Shakir said. “Obviously we know the senator’s strength tends to come from younger voters, and those younger voters are often underrepresented in these landline-based polls. And if those polls are not doing a good job of trying to account for young people, or figuring out different ways to reach them, then those, by our own estimation, should be deemed a bit suspect”
Shakir added that these skewed polls are eaten up by corporate journalists, who just look at the top line of the poll rather than reviewing the methodology. These journalists then propagate the skewed polling into the daily news cycle “without really anyone questioning some of these basic factors that you and I are discussing.”


Many of the corporate journalists pushing these polls without context or caveats work for parent companies with clear conflicts of interests when it comes to the 2020 campaign—and Sanders.
For example, both workers for and the corporate pac of CNN’s parent company AT&T have combined to donate close to $51,000 to Senator Kamala Harris’ campaign thus far; Comcast, which owns NBC News and MSNBC’, had one of its VP’s host a fundraiser for Joe Biden; and of course, there’s The Washington Post, owned by Amazon and Jeff Bezos, who were on the receiving end of Sanders’ months-long social media ire before ultimately deciding to raise Amazon’s minimum wage to $15.


The fact that many of these outlets have offered a steady stream of attacks on Sanders—without disclosing their financial support for other candidates or previous conflict with Sanders—isn’t lost on the man at the helm of Sanders’ 2020 campaign.


“Those kind of disclosures are really important to make…structurally, it is important for people to understand and know how their media is funded, what they decide to cover, and why they may have certain biases about what they’re covering,” Shakir said, stressing that he didn’t want to call out each individual reporter for their bosses political ties.


Ultimately, Skakir thinks, an iconoclastic reformer like Sanders—who is explicitly charging at corporate power— will predictably be met with fierce resistance from that corporate power: “Those kinds of things are exactly the issues that many in the corporate elite world are deathly afraid of and would understandably would want to influence in any way that they can.”


One powerful entity progressive Sanders supporters are concerned about is the Democratic National Committee, which was exposed as having worked to sabotage Sanders’ 2016 campaign while propping up Hillary Clinton’s. Despite DNC Chair Tom Perez’ repeated pledge of neutrality, the chair just hired Chris Korge as Finance Chairman—a man that Status Coup reported was a major donor to Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (and publicly disparaged Sanders just a few months ago).


“They [the DNC] did gave us a call, we had a conversation about it,” Shakir said about the DNC calling Sanders’ campaign as they were about to announce Korge’s hiring. Shakir said the DNC has taken steps to fix some of the problems that sprung from 2016, but the campaign is keeping a “very cautious eye out” for any impropriety coming from the party. And if they come across shenanigans, Shakir vowed to raise the issue publicly.


He understands progressives’ natural concern over fairness during the primary process, but also made it clear—2020 is a different ball game.


“This race is nothing like last time; we shouldn’t fall into the trap of believing that it’s going to be the same…the context of this race is so different that I’m constantly trying to make sure we don’t fall into the wrong assumptions of where this race is.”





































Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Leaked Court Docs Upending Brazil
















https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1vK9DaEgtg




































































Robert Reich: America is More Radical Than You Think













https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96WViBpcV1Q






































































Iranian Prof.- Why Would Iran Attack Tankers in the Gulf of Oman?














https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nZs-u8CqZQ

































































America's Suicide Epidemic















It’s Hitting Trump’s Base Hard 




We hear a lot about suicide when celebrities like Anthony Bourdain and Kate Spade die by their own hand. Otherwise, it seldom makes the headlines. That’s odd given the magnitude of the problem.

In 2017, 47,173 Americans killed themselves. In that single year, in other words, the suicide count was nearly seven times greater than the number of American soldiers killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars between 2001 and 2018.

A suicide occurs in the United States roughly once every 12 minutes. What’s more, after decades of decline, the rate of self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 people annually -- the suicide rate -- has been increasing sharply since the late 1990s. Suicides now claim two-and-a-half times as many lives in this country as do homicides, even though the murder rate gets so much more attention.

In other words, we’re talking about a national epidemic of self-inflicted deaths.

Worrisome Numbers

Anyone who has lost a close relative or friend to suicide or has worked on a suicide hotline (as I have) knows that statistics transform the individual, the personal, and indeed the mysterious aspects of that violent act -- Why this person?  Why now? Why in this manner? -- into depersonalized abstractions. Still, to grasp how serious the suicide epidemic has become, numbers are a necessity.

According to a 2018 Centers for Disease Control study, between 1999 and 2016, the suicide rate increased in every state in the union except Nevada, which already had a remarkably high rate.  In 30 states, it jumped by 25% or more; in 17, by at least a third.  Nationally, it increased 33%.  In some states the upsurge was far higher: North Dakota (57.6%), New Hampshire (48.3%), Kansas (45%), Idaho (43%).

Alas, the news only gets grimmer.

Since 2008, suicide has ranked 10th among the causes of death in this country. For Americans between the ages of 10 and 34, however, it comes in second; for those between 35 and 45, fourth.  The United States also has the ninth-highest rate in the 38-country Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Globally, it ranks 27th.

More importantly, the trend in the United States doesn’t align with what’s happening elsewhere in the developed world. The World Health Organization, for instance, reports that Great Britain, Canada, and China all have notably lower suicide rates than the U.S., as do all but six countries in the European Union. (Japan’s is only slightly lower.)

World Bank statistics show that, worldwide, the suicide rate fell from 12.8 per 100,000 in 2000 to 10.6 in 2016.  It’s been falling in ChinaJapan (where it has declined steadily for nearly a decade and is at its lowest point in 37 years), most of Europe, and even countries like South Korea and Russia that have a significantly higher suicide rate than the United States. In Russia, for instance, it has dropped by nearly 26% from a high point of 42 per 100,000 in 1994 to 31 in 2019.

We know a fair amount about the patterns of suicide in the United States.  In 2017, the rate was highest for men between the ages of 45 and 64 (30 per 100,000) and those 75 and older (39.7 per 100,000).

The rates in rural counties are almost double those in the most urbanized ones, which is why states like Idaho, Kansas, New Hampshire, and North Dakota sit atop the suicide list. Furthermore, a far higher percentage of people in rural states own guns than in cities and suburbs, leading to a higher rate of suicide involving firearms, the means used in half of all such acts in this country.

There are gender-based differences as well. From 1999 to 2017, the rate for men was substantially higher than for women -- almost four-and-a-half times higher in the first of those years, slightly more than three-and-a-half times in the last.

Education is also a factor.  The suicide rate is lowest among individuals with college degrees. Those who, at best, completed high school are, by comparison, twice as likely to kill themselves.  Suicide rates also tend to be lower among people in higher-income brackets. 

The Economics of Stress

This surge in the suicide rate has taken place in years during which the working class has experienced greater economic hardship and psychological stress.  Increased competition from abroad and outsourcing, the results of globalization, have contributed to job loss, particularly in economic sectors like manufacturing, steel, and mining that had long been mainstays of employment for such workers. The jobs still available often paid less and provided fewer benefits.

Technological change, including computerization, robotics, and the coming of artificial intelligence, has similarly begun to displace labor in significant ways, leaving Americans without college degrees, especially those 50 and older, in far more difficult straits when it comes to finding new jobs that pay well. The lack of anything resembling an industrial policy of a sort that exists in Europe has made these dislocations even more painful for American workers, while a sharp decline in private-sector union membership -- downfrom nearly 17% in 1983 to 6.4% today -- has reduced their ability to press for higher wages through collective bargaining.

Furthermore, the inflation-adjusted median wage has barely budged over the last four decades (even as CEO salaries have soared).  And a decline in worker productivity doesn’t explain it: between 1973 and 2017 productivity increased by 77%, while a worker’s average hourly wage only rose by 12.4%. Wage stagnation has made it harder for working-class Americans to get by, let alone have a lifestyle comparable to that of their parents or grandparents.

The gap in earnings between those at the top and bottom of American society has also increased -- a lot. Since 1979, the wages of Americans in the 10th percentile increased by a pitiful 1.2%. Those in the 50th percentile did a bit better, making a gain of 6%.  By contrast, those in the 90th percentile increased by 34.3% and those near the peak of the wage pyramid -- the top 1% and especially the rarefied 0.1% -- made far more substantial gains.  

And mind you, we’re just talking about wages, not other forms of income like large stock dividends, expensive homes, or eyepopping inheritances.  The share of net national wealth held by the richest 0.1% increased from 10% in the 1980s to 20% in 2016.  By contrast, the share of the bottom 90% shrank in those same decades from about 35% to 20%.  As for the top 1%, by 2016 its share had increased to almost 39%.

The precise relationship between economic inequality and suicide rates remains unclear, and suicide certainly can’t simply be reduced to wealth disparities or financial stress. Still, strikingly, in contrast to the United States, suicide rates are noticeably lower and have been declining in Western European countries where income inequalities are far less pronounced, publicly funded healthcare is regarded as a right (not demonized as a pathway to serfdom), social safety nets far more extensive, and apprenticeships and worker retraining programs more widespread.

Evidence from the United StatesBrazilJapan, and Sweden does indicate that, as income inequality increases, so does the suicide rate. If so, the good news is that progressive economic policies -- should Democrats ever retake the White House and the Senate -- could make a positive difference.  A study based on state-by-state variations in the U.S. found that simply boosting the minimum wage and Earned Income Tax Credit by 10% appreciably reduces the suicide rate among people without college degrees.

The Race Enigma

One aspect of the suicide epidemic is puzzling.  Though whites have fared far better economically (and in many other ways) than African Americans, their suicide rate is significantly higher.  It increased from 11.3 per 100,000 in 2000 to 15.85 per 100,000 in 2017; for African Americans in those years the rates were 5.52 per 100,000 and 6.61 per 100,000. Black men are 10 times more likely to be homicide victims than white men, but the latter are two-and-half times more likely to kill themselves.

The higher suicide rate among whites as well as among people with only a high school diploma highlights suicide’s disproportionate effect on working-class whites. This segment of the population also accounts for a disproportionate share of what economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have labeled “deaths of despair” -- those caused by suicides plus opioid overdoses and liver diseases linked to alcohol abuse. Though it’s hard to offer a complete explanation for this, economic hardship and its ripple effects do appear to matter.

According to a study by the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the white working class accounted for 45% of all income earned in the United States in 1990, but only 27% in 2016.  In those same years, its share of national wealth plummeted, from 45% to 22%.  And as inflation-adjusted wages have decreased for men without college degrees, many white workers seem to have lost hope of success of any sort.  Paradoxically, the sense of failure and the accompanying stress may be greater for white workers precisely because they traditionally were much better off economically than their African American and Hispanic counterparts.

In addition, the fraying of communities knit together by employment in once-robust factories and mines has increased social isolation among them, and the evidence that it -- along with opioid addiction and alcohol abuse -- increases the risk of suicide is strong. On top of that, a significantly higher proportion of whites than blacks and Hispanics own firearms, and suicide rates are markedly higher in states where gun ownership is more widespread.

Trump’s Faux Populism

The large increase in suicide within the white working class began a couple of decades before Donald Trump’s election. Still, it’s reasonable to ask what he’s tried to do about it, particularly since votes from these Americans helped propel him to the White House. In 2016, he received 64% of the votes of whites without college degrees; Hillary Clinton, only 28%.  Nationwide, he beat Clinton in counties where deaths of despair rose significantly between 2000 and 2015.

White workers will remain crucial to Trump’s chances of winning in 2020.  Yet while he has spoken about, and initiated steps aimed at reducing, the high suicide rate among veterans, his speeches and tweets have never highlighted the national suicide epidemic or its inordinate impact on white workers. More importantly, to the extent that economic despair contributes to their high suicide rate, his policies will only make matters worse.

The real benefits from the December 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act championed by the president and congressional Republicans flowed to those on the top steps of the economic ladder.  By 2027, when the Act’s provisions will run out, the wealthiest Americans are expected to have captured 81.8%of the gains.  And that’s not counting the windfall they received from recent changes in taxes on inheritances. Trump and the GOP doubled the annual amount exempt from estate taxes -- wealth bequeathed to heirs -- through 2025 from $5.6 million per individual to $11.2 million (or $22.4 million per couple). And who benefits most from this act of generosity?  Not workers, that’s for sure, but every household with an estate worth $22 million or more will.

As for job retraining provided by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the president proposed cutting that program by 40% in his 2019 budget, later settling for keeping it at 2017 levels. Future cuts seem in the cards as long as Trump is in the White House. The Congressional Budget Office projects that his tax cuts alone will produce even bigger budget deficits in the years to come. (The shortfall last year was $779 billion and it is expected to reach $1 trillion by 2020.) Inevitably, the president and congressional Republicans will then demand additional reductions in spending for social programs.

This is all the more likely because Trump and those Republicans also slashedcorporate taxes from 35% to 21% -- an estimated $1.4 trillion in savings for corporations over the next decade. And unlike the income tax cut, the corporate tax has no end date. The president assured his base that the big bucks those companies had stashed abroad would start flowing home and produce a wave of job creation -- all without adding to the deficit. As it happens, however, most of that repatriated cash has been used for corporate stock buy-backs, which totaled more than $800 billion last year.  That, in turn, boosted share prices, but didn’t exactly rain money down on workers. No surprise, of course, since the wealthiest 10% of Americans own at least 84% of all stocks and the bottom 60% have less than 2% of them. 

And the president’s corporate tax cut hasn’t produced the tsunami of job-generating investments he predicted either. Indeed, in its aftermath, more than 80% of American companies stated that their plans for investment and hiring hadn’t changed. As a result, the monthly increase in jobs has proven unremarkable compared to President Obama’s second term, when the economic recovery that Trump largely inherited began. Yes, the economy did grow 2.3% in 2017 and 2.9% in 2018 (though not 3.1% as the president claimed). There wasn’t, however, any “unprecedented economic boom -- a boom that has rarely been seen before” as he insisted in this year’s State of the Union Address.

Anyway, what matters for workers struggling to get by is growth in real wages, and there’s nothing to celebrate on that front: between 2017 and mid-2018 they actually declined by 1.63% for white workers and 2.5% for African Americans, while they rose for Hispanics by a measly 0.37%.  And though Trump insists that his beloved tariff hikes are going to help workers, they will actually raise the prices of goods, hurting the working class and other low-income Americans the most

Then there are the obstacles those susceptible to suicide face in receiving insurance-provided mental-health care. If you’re a white worker without medical coverage or have a policy with a deductible and co-payments that are high and your income, while low, is too high to qualify for Medicaid, Trump and the GOP haven’t done anything for you. Never mind the president’s tweetproclaiming that “the Republican Party Will Become ‘The Party of Healthcare!’” 

Let me amend that: actually, they have done something. It’s just not what you’d call helpful. The percentage of uninsured adults, which fell from 18% in 2013 to 10.9% at the end of 2016, thanks in no small measure to Obamacare, had risen to 13.7% by the end of last year.

The bottom line? On a problem that literally has life-and-death significance for a pivotal portion of his base, Trump has been AWOL. In fact, to the extent that economic strain contributes to the alarming suicide rate among white workers, his policies are only likely to exacerbate what is already a national crisis of epidemic proportions.

























Philosopher Srećko Horvat on Julian Assange & Europe's Progressive Movement - DiEM25
















https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvqTdRiFGkI



















Published on Nov 30, 2018
















































Why We Need a European Green New Deal

















By Srećko Horvat, ROAR Magazine








The damage caused by air pollution is now being compared to the effects of tobacco use. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), air pollution poses the greatest environmental threat to global health in 2019, killing seven million people prematurely every year, which is around the number of deaths caused by cigarettes.

No wonder a common joke about air pollution in contemporary India says that “living in Delhi is just like smoking 50 cigarettes in a day.”

Or that a joke in China even suggests ways of dealing with the air pollution in the best Graucho Marx manner: “Individual therapy: put a mask on. Family therapy: buy health insurance. If you have money and the time: go on holiday. If you’ve no class: emigrate. National therapy: wait for the wind.”

Unfortunately, as usually with dark humor, the joke is reality. When in January 2017 China announced the first ever nationwide red level fog alarm, haze-avoidance soon became a trend and hundreds of thousands of Chinese would start traveling abroad during winter months — when pollution is critical — specifically to escape air pollution. At the same time, those who do not have the means to escape have to stay with masks and literally wait for… air.

When we hear or read about air pollution, we immediately think of India or China. Yet the death rate from air pollution in Hungary happens to be the second highest in the world, coming just behind China. As many as 10,000 people die prematurely in the country each year because of diseases linked to air pollution.

In 2018, the European Environment Agency (EEA) published a report showing that air pollution causes almost 500,000 premature deaths in Europe every year. The report warned that the toll on health was worse in Eastern European countries than China and India.

CHINESE SCIENCE FICTION, EUROPE’S REALITY?

Only a few years ago it would have sounded ludicrous to compare Europe’s present to Chinese science fiction: how could an imagination of a future coming from today’s China be telling us a story about Europe’s own destiny? Yet, to understand Europe’s current ecological catastrophe, it is useful to reach out for one of China’s best contemporary science fiction writers, Hao Jingfang and her Folding Beijing.

It depicts a future Beijing which is divided in three social classes, each of which live on a different physical surface of the city. What Folding Beijing describes is a polluted dystopia in which the main character works as a waste processing worker belonging to the third class. Sunlight is so scarce that it is rationed based on economic class. Technology and automation serve the rich who live in a First space with fresh air, while the poor literally live in and from garbage.

It is a truly disturbing depiction of a future where worlds are literally separated — even Time itself is carefully divided and parceled out to separate classes — as a sort of “parallel realities,” which are, nonetheless, interconnected and part of the structure of one and the same world serving the ones living in the First space.

As with every good science fiction, this story does not so much describe a distant future, but a world which is already unfolding below our feet. But what if Folding Beijing is not just pursuing the current social inequalities in China and its rapid development to its logical conclusion — in order to depict an inevitable future if the current trends continue? What if it might represent Europe’s current ecological catastrophe and environmental breakdown?

Over the past years we have already become accustomed to the smog photos from Beijing as one of the worst places for air quality in the world. But these days we are witnessing similar images from Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and other less developed European countries.

At the end of January 2019, 1.7 million inhabitants of Belgrade, the Serbian capital, woke up in the morning to find themselves in the most polluted city in the world. That day, in a city and country with continuing and growing anti-government protests, the activists of the social movement Don’t Drown Belgrade sent a gas mask to the mayor with a simple message: “Soon everyone will need a gas mask.”

FRESH AIR IN THE WEST, GAS MASKS IN THE EAST

And here we come from Folding Beijing to “Folding Europe.” There is a sharp divide in air quality between the West and East of Europe. Even Forbes magazine recently called it “the New Iron Curtain.” But beside naming the reasons for this air pollution, such as brown coal as the main energy source of post-communist countries, Forbes did not name the true origin of the problem.

The problem is not so much that Eastern European countries — former Yugoslavia and the Eastern Bloc states — are not “developed” enough. The problem is that the current architecture of the European Union is actually based on a deep and growing divide between the center (Western Europe) and periphery (Eastern Europe). Without the under-developed East, the West could not really go through its “green transition” — or what the Germans would call Energiewende.

If it was ever tangible that Europe is rapidly transforming itself into a dystopian “Folding Europe,” with different spaces of air quality depending on whether you belong to the center or the periphery, to the global rich or the global poor, then it was with the current Diesel ban in Germany — and its consequences for the East.

The ban itself, of course, is a development in the right direction, but it does not solve the deeper ecological and economic problem which goes beyond national borders. Even if Germany is at the moment, as one of Europe’s most developed countries, going through its “green transition,” this has devastating environmental and health consequences for the rest of the European Union.

In late January, when children in Belgium were protesting against climate change, it became clearer than ever that you cannot just “outsource” or “export” air pollution while at the same time schools were closed in Macedonia because of extremely high levels of air pollution. Already in December 2018, two cities in Macedonia — the western city of Tetovo and the capital, Skopje — were named by the European Air Quality Index as the most polluted cities in Europe.

In other words, Western Europe is literally exporting “air pollution” to the periphery of the EU. According to the German Handelsblatt, the export of German used diesel cars increased to 233,321 in 2017, up 18 percent from the year before. Although the main export is still to France, Austria and Italy, a significant number went to Eastern Europe: 11,841 cars went to Hungary, 9,439 to Slovakia and 10,899 to Romania. In 2017, the import of second-hand diesel cars from Germany to Croatia rose by 89 percent.

But once again, this time explicitly, the framing of the story was a typical dismissal of the true problem. The German newspaper carried the title “Eastern Europe’s appetite for dirty old diesels,” as if the people of Hungary, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania and Bulgaria would not be happy with an Energiewende and would not rather breathe fresh air instead of… wearing gas masks.

“THERE IS NO GREEN TRANSITION IN ONE COUNTRY”

What this reality of “Folding Europe” — less science fiction, more capitalist realism — makes more and more evident is that the solution to today’s universal problems (like climate change or environmental breakdown) cannot lie in solutions that are already distributed according to the different realities or “folders” of contemporary Europe: “green transition” for the West, Diesel for the East.

This “uneven development” is not only manifested in the stark division between the center and the periphery, becoming tangible with air pollution; it is at the same time a deep class division within societies, as became visible with the Yellow Vests protests in France, where it was — once again — the poor who were destined to pay the costs of the “green transition” through a “carbon tax.”

What is becoming more obvious when faced with the recent reports about a complete planetary environmental breakdown is that “green transition” for the rich, and ecological catastrophe for the poor, is not a solution if we want to have a liveable planet at all.