Mueller Report and Anti-Democratic US

According to secondary reporting, the infamous Mueller report alleging Russian “meddling” in the 2016 US presidential election, states that the GRU, an organ of the Russian government, “stole” e-mails from the self-proclaimed “Democratic” National Committee (“D”NC) with the intention of publishing those e-mails. Use your logic. What would be the point of publishing these e-mails unless they had public interest? None. And why did they have public interest? You and I know that the reason that these e-mails would draw public interest is that these e-mails showed that the “D”NC was conspiring with the Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) campaign to cheat the supporters of Senator Sanders out of the political power in the “Democratic” primary elections that those supporters deserved on account of their numbers. Even if this “theft” of e-mails was technically illegal, the larger ethical consideration should see that stealing from people who are thieves in the first place might be a good thing in the net. In this case, the “D”NC stole from a subset of the rank and file of their party, their rightful political power. The significance that Americans should take from these events is that something about the system of government and elections in the US is very anti-democratic in terms of the power it hands to certain supposed party officials to steal the elections from the public at large and from the working class. And speaking of class, what class may think it will benefit from a drumbeat of propaganda against Russia? That would be the 1% of the 1%, who want a war, either a low-level war or a hot war. I call on all Americans to separate this tiny minority from power whose interests conflict with your own interest in survival. And in doing so, you can cite the Mueller report as an indirect indictment of what is happening in the US that prevents the working class form their rightful political power as justified by their numbers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UN Rights Panel Called for Assange Release in 2016

From the New York Times:

A United Nations rights panel said in January 2016 that Britain and Sweden had arbitrarily detained Mr. Assange, should restore his freedom of movement and should compensate him. The panel said that Swedish prosecutors had not pressed charges and had never shown Mr. Assange evidence against him or given him a chance to respond. …

link into NYT

Posted in antiimperialism, human rights | 1 Comment

New York Times 2019-02-25 on Venezuela

On page A4, they picture the “Venezuelan protesters” and the caption says “Protesters preparing Molotov cocktails on Sunday along the Venezuela-Colombia border.”

This is valuable in debating the issue with people who are brainwashed by the media to believe the Venezuelan government is using violence against peaceful protesters, especially since it is from NYT, which supports US intervention in Venezuela.

In response to Molotov cocktails by a group of people attacking the Venezuelan border from another country (not an internal protest), NYT and NPR report that the Venezuelan army used tear gas. Tear gas, which the American police always use against peaceful American protesters here at home.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“We”, “We”, “We”, All The Way Home

Dear American who stands for peace and justice: As a matter of effective rhetoric for promoting our common cause, please consider my suggestion to use language that would distance yourself personally from the behavior that you and I disapprove of. Say things like “US officials ruined Libya” or “US officials imposed sanctions on Venezuela” or “the 1% wants to attack Russia” rather than including yourself with torturers and war criminals in “we” language, if you were not personally involved in the crimes or atrocities you refer to.

[ ]

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Utilitarianism vs. Majoritarianism

Advocates for voting reform seem to fall by and large into two camps, the Majoritarians and the Utilitarians. The difference is well illustrated by the example of “Everybody Loves Raymond”.

Let’s say the election for Governor of Virginia has three candidates, Raymond, Charles, and Sally. Say 49% of the voters would on a scale of 0 to 10 rate Sally a 10, Raymond a 9, and Sally zero. Say the remaining 51% of the voters rate Charles a 10, Raymond a 9, and Sally zero. Utilitarians would say that the best voting systems would be those that would elect Raymond in this scenario, because if you sum up the level of disappointment across all the voters, the Charles outcome is more disappointing overall. On the other hand, Majoratarians argue that majority should rule at all costs, which results in Charles being elected.

I did not come up with this example, but for now, I can’t remember who did.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In Favor of Enforcing Immigration Laws

The citizens need a system of laws that will protect all workers from abuse. So, no human trafficking, no slavery. All people physically present must enjoy the protection of the laws. Winking at illegal immigration creates a class of people who do not receive that protection because those exploiting and abusing them can always threaten to have them deported. Moreover, such illegally present persons tend to fear the police and other officials, so in effect cannot complain about crimes perpetrated against them.

Those who think the current immigration laws ought not be enforced should propose changes in those laws.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

If Someone Comments On Your ‘blog, Do You See The Comment?

In the title of , the author accuses this McCarthy congresscritter, but the body of the post doesn’t seem to explain just where McCarthy supposedly applauded the thing that the title accuses him of having applauded.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment