November 1st, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
Seafaring settlers traveled hundreds — even thousands — of miles, navigating by stars and overcoming ocean currents and difficult weather for months to arrive in a region that includes present-day Tonga, Samoa, Hawaii, Micronesia and Fiji.
Map provides a synthesis of results from computer simulations and climatic data that were used to analyze ocean routes across the Pacific Ocean showing viable ocean crossings, weather patterns, seasonal variations and other factors in Remote Oceania.
Credit: Scott Fitzpatrick,
“Where did these people come from? How did they get to these really remote places, and what were the factors, culturally, technologically and politically that led to these population dispersals?” Fitzpatrick said. “These are really big questions for Pacific archaeology and other related disciplines.”
Fitzpatrick and his team, which includes Ohio State University geographer Alvaro Montenegro and University of Calgary archaeologist Richard Callaghan, offer some potential answers in a paper published Oct. 24 in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The paper, “Using Seafaring Simulations and ‘Shortest Hop’ Trajectories to Model the Prehistoric Colonization of Remote Oceania,” details the team’s use of computer simulations and climatic data to analyze ocean routes across the Pacific. The simulations take into account high-resolution data for winds, ocean currents, land distribution and precipitation.
Replica of a Palauan outrigger canoe
Credit: Scott Fitzpatrick
“We synthesized a lot of new climatic data and ran a lot of new simulations that are exciting in terms of highlighting and pinpointing where some of these prehistoric populations might have come from,” Fitzpatrick said. “The simulation can assess, at any point in time, if somebody left point A, where would they end up if they drifted? We can also model directed voyages. If somebody knew where they were going, how long would it take them to get there?”
Fitzpatrick and his colleagues used their simulations to identify most likely ports of departure for the settlers of five major regions in Remote Oceania. To account for course variations due to wind and currents, the team created shortest-hop trajectories to assess the likely paths of least resistance. This technique factors in the role that distance and remoteness may have played in facilitating voyaging from one island to another and can include changes in sea level at different points in time that may have made these trips easier or harder.
Seafaring models have been developed and used by other researchers in the past, Fitzpatrick said, but they weren’t able to fully harness the high-resolution satellite data sets that have only recently been made available to scientists.
The research team’s simulations include El Nino Southern Oscillation patterns, which settlers most likely knew about and used to their advantage, Fitzpatrick said. Archaeological records reflect El Nino occurrences, which typically happen every three to seven years and can be seen in evidence marking droughts and fires. Because winds and associated precipitation shift from westerly to easterly during El Nino years, settlers would have found travel toward Remote Oceania more favorable when the pattern was occurring and may have timed their departures accordingly.
“What Pacific scholars have long surmised but never really been able to establish very well is that, through time, Pacific Islanders should have developed a great deal of knowledge of different climactic variations, different oscillations of wind and changes in environments that would have influenced their survivability and their abilities to go to certain places,” Fitzpatrick said.
View of the reefs and islands around Airai Bay, Palau
Credit: Scott Fitzpatrick
The analysis provides insights about the origins of the early seafarers. The settlers of western Micronesia probably came from near the Maluku Islands, also known as the Spice Islands. Some of the team’s findings challenge current archaeological theories, while other data support existing lines of evidence. The research suggests Samoa was the most likely staging area for colonizing East Polynesia. It also indicates that Hawaii and New Zealand may have been settled from the Marquesas or Society Islands. Easter Island may have been settled from the Marquesas or Mangareva.
The new paper also highlights areas worthy of further research. It suggests that Samoa may have been an epicenter for colonization and challenges data that suggests the Philippines as a potential point of departure for the settlement of Micronesia.
The three team members brought complementary expertise to the study. Fitzpatrick contributed his knowledge of the archaeology of island and coastal regions in the Pacific and the Caribbean. Montenegro, the paper’s lead author, is a geographer and climatologist. Callaghan is an archaeologist specializing in seafaring simulations.
A question that may never be resolved is why seafaring settlers traveled such immense distances. Although evidence exists that some settlers were motivated by a desire to obtain new resources such as basalt or obsidian for making stone tools, Fitzpatrick said, there’s no easy way to explain the leap of faith it would take to set off on a colonizing mission of 400 to 2,500 miles.
“What drove the movement? That’s the big question,” he said. “Was it political? Was it a result of population pressure? There were probably multiple reasons why people decided to leave one place and go to another.”
Comments Off on How Early Pacific Seafarers Populated On Of Earth’s Most Remote Regions
October 27th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
New dating on the stone buildings of Nan Madol suggests the ancient coral reef capital in the Pacific Ocean was the earliest among the islands to be ruled by a single chief.
The discovery makes Nan Madol a key locale for studying how ancient human societies evolved from simple societies to more complex societies, said archaeologist Mark D. McCoy, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. McCoy led the discovery team.
The finding was uncovered as part of a National Geographic expedition to study the monumental tomb said to belong to the first chief of the island of Pohnpei.
McCoy deployed uranium series dating to determine that when the tomb was built it was one-of-a-kind, making it the first monumental scaled burial site on the remote islands of the Pacific.
The discovery enables archaeologists to study more precisely how societies transform to more and more complex and hierarchical systems, said McCoy, an expert in landscape archaeology and monumental architecture and ideology in the Pacific Islands.
Basalt boulders: The discovery makes Nan Madol a key locale for studying how ancient human societies evolved from simple societies to more complex societies, said SMU archaeologist Mark D. McCoy, who led the discovery team.
Credit Helen Alderson
“The kind of society that we live in today, it wasn’t born last year, or even 100 years ago,” McCoy said. “It has its roots in a pre-modern era like Nan Madol where you have a king or chief. These islanders invented a new kind of society — that is a socially creative achievement. The idea of chiefs, someone in charge, is not a new thing, but it’s an extremely important precursor. We know tribes and bands predate chiefdoms and states. But it’s not a straight line. By looking at these intermediate stages we get insight into that social phenomenon.”
The analysis is the first time uranium-thorium series dating, which is significantly more precise than previously used radiocarbon dating, was deployed to calculate the age of the stone buildings that make up the famous site of Nan Madol (pronounced Nehn Muh-DOLL) – the former capital of the island of Pohnpei.
“The thing that makes this case special is Nan Madol happened in isolation, it happened very recently, and we have multiple lines of evidence, including oral histories to support the analysis,” McCoy said. “And because it’s an island we can be much more specific about the natural resources, the population, all the things that are more difficult when people are on a continent and all connected. So we can understand it with a lot more precision.”
Nan Madol, which UNESCO this year named a World Heritage Site, was previously dated as being established in A.D. 1300. McCoy’s team narrowed that to just a 20-year window more than 100 years earlier, from 1180 to 1200.
The finding pushes back even earlier the establishment of the powerful dynasty of Saudeleur chiefs who asserted authority over the island society for more than 1,000 years.
First chief was buried in Pohnpei tomb by A.D. 1200
An ancient city built atop a coral reef, Nan Madol has been uninhabited for centuries now. Located in the northwestern Pacific on the remote island of Pohnpei, it’s accessible via a 10-hour flight from Hawaii interspersed with short hops from atoll to atoll, including a stop at a U.S. military installation. Nan Madol is the largest archaeological site in Micronesia, a group of islands in the Caroline Archipelago of Oceania.
Uranium dating indicates that by 1180, massive stones were being transported from a volcanic plug on the opposite side of the island for construction of the tomb. And by 1200, the burial vault had its first internment, the island’s chief. Manipulate two 3D models of the burial monument, one with foliage and one without, athttps://skfb.ly/StXA and https://skfb.ly/S9LF.
Construction of monumental buildings followed over the next several centuries on other islands not in the Saudeleur Dynasty across Oceania.
McCoy, an associate professor in the SMU Department of Anthropology, and his team reported their discovery in the journal Quaternary Research in “Earliest direct evidence of monument building at the archaeological site of Nan Madol identified using 230Th/U coral dating and geochemical sourcing of megalithic architectural stone.”
Co-authors include Helen A. Alderson, University of Cambridge, U.K., Richard Hemi, University of Otago, New Zealand, Hai Cheng, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China, and R. Lawrence Edwards, University of Minnesota.
An inactive volcano that hasn’t erupted in at least one million years, Pohnpei Island is much larger than its neighboring atolls at 128 square miles (334 square kilometers), making it about the physical size of Columbia, S.C.
Now part of the 607-island nation of the Federated States of Micronesia, Pohnpei Island and its nearby atolls have a population of 34,000.
Pohnpei monument indicates invention of a new kind of society
How Nan Madol was built remains an engineering mystery, much like Egypt’s Pyramids.
“It’s a fair comparison to the Pyramids, because the construction, like the Pyramids, didn’t help anyone — it didn’t help society be fairer, or to grow crops or to provide any social good. It’s just a really big place to put a dead person,” McCoy said.
It’s important to document such things, he said, because this architectural wonder indicates that independently of Egypt, another group of people put effort into building a monument.
“And we think that’s associated with the invention of a new kind of society, a new kind of chiefdom that ruled the entire island,” McCoy said.
Unlike Egypt and the Pyramids however, Nan Madol was invented much more recently in the big story of human prehistory, he said.
“At A.D. 1200 there are universities in Europe. The Romans had come and gone. The Egyptians had come and gone,” he said. “But when you’re looking at Pohnpei, it’s very recent, so we still have the oral histories of the descendants of the people who built Nan Madol. There’s evidence that you just don’t have elsewhere.”
Monumental city built of coral and stone
Pohnpei was originally settled in A.D. 1 by islanders from the Solomon or Vanuatu island groups. According to local oral history, the Saudeleur Dynasty is estimated to have begun its rule around 1160 by counting back generations from the modern day.
To build the tomb and other structures, naturally formed boulders of basalt, each weighing tons, were somehow transported far from existing quarries on the other side of the island to a lagoon overgrown with mangrove and stretching across 205 acres (83 hectares).
The basalt blocks formed when hot lava cooled and adopted the shape of long, column-shaped boulders and cobbles. Formed from 1 million to 8 million years ago, they came from a number of possible quarry locations on the island.
The city’s stone structures were built atop 98 shallow artificial coral reef islets, each one built by the Saudeleur people. The structures were constructed about three feet above waterline by laying down framing stones, filling the void between them with crushed coral, then laying up double parallel walls and again filling the gap between with crushed coral. The islets are separated by tidal canals and protected from the ocean by 12 sea walls, making Nan Madol what many consider the Venice of the Pacific.
The archaeological site of Nan Madol in the Federated States of Micronesia was made a UNESCO world heritage site in 2016. This 3D scan of Nandauwas Islet shows the tomb of the first chiefs to rule the island of Pohnpei. It was made with a FARO Focus 3D scanner and in this low res version (17MB) the islet’s vegetation has been not been removed so it is difficult to see the tomb’s architecture
“The structures are very cleverly built,” said McCoy. “We think of coral as precious, but for the architects of Nan Madol it was a building material. They were on a little island surrounded by huge amounts of coral reef that grows really quickly in this environment, so they could paddle out at low tide and mine the coral by smashing some off and breaking it up into rubble.”
The largest and most elaborate architecture in the city is the tomb of the first Saudeleur, measuring 262 feet by 196 feet (80 meters by 60 meters), basically the size of a football field. It is more than 26 feet (8 meters) tall, with exterior walls about six feet to 10 feet (1.8 to 3 meters) thick. A maze of walls and interior walkways, it includes an underground crypt capped with basalt.
“The architecture is meant to be extremely impressive, and it is,” McCoy said. “The structures were built to last — this is one of the rainiest places on earth, so it can be muddy and slippery and wet, but these islets on the coral reef are very stable.”
Portable X-ray technology provides clue to source of megalithic stones
McCoy and his team used portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) to geochemically match the columnar-shaped basalt stones to natural sources on the island. The uranium-thorium technique calculates a date based on characteristics of the radioactive isotope thorium-230 and its radioactive parent uranium-234.
That enabled them to determine the construction chronology of a tomb that oral histories identify as the resting place of the first chief to rule the entire island.
“We used an X-ray gun, which looks like a 1950s-styled ray gun,” McCoy said. “It allows you — at a distance and without destroying the thing you’re interested in — to bounce X-rays off it and work out what the chemistry is. The mobile technology has gotten much more affordable, making this kind of study feasible.”
Using uranium series dating on coral emerged in the last decade. Accuracy — superior to radiocarbon — is plus or minus a few years of when the coral died. A very good radiocarbon date only will get within 100 years.
“That’s a monumental shift in terms of the precision with which we talk about things,” McCoy said. “If Nan Madol had not been made of the kind of stone we could source, if the architects hadn’t chosen to use coral, we wouldn’t have been able to get this date. So it’s a happy coincidence that the evidence at the site came together.”
McCoy suggests that future research look at finding the cause for this major turning point on Pohnpei, and what sparked this new hierarchy of rule and monumental building in this society.
Comments Off on Age Of First Chief’s Ancient Tomb Reveals Pacific Island Society
October 27th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
Game theory has long been used to apply mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers.
However, our world has evolved from great power conflicts to one where many of our major problems are spawned not from monolithic blocks of self-interest, but from a vast array of single entities making highly individual choices: from lone wolf terrorists to corrupt officials, tax evaders, isolated hackers or even armies of botnets and packages of malware.
Credit; University of Warwick
Game theory needs to catch up and new research by mathematicians, led by Professor Vassili Kolokoltsov at the University of Warwick, has just found the way to do that by giving game theory calculations an enormous army of “agents”.
In a paper, entitled ‘The evolutionary games of pressure (or interference), resistance and collaboration’, Professor Kolokoltsov, from Warwick’s Department of Statistics, has been able to take Game Theory far beyond some of its early applications of two opposing sides in zero sum games, and equipped it with the ability to model the impact of a vast array of individual actors – an “infinite state-space of small players”.
The paper says the new tool can be “applied to the analysis of the processes of inspection, corruption, cyber-security, counter-terrorism, banks and firms merging […] and many others”
To take just one application: tax fraud costs the UK government £16bn a year, according to the National Audit. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has faced questions about both how it decides to deal with individual large companies and how it balances its efforts between pursuing large corporations and individual tax payers.
This evolution of Game theory could greatly assist it in simultaneously model the best approach to manage the great number of participants in the process and create efficient disincentives for both individual and corporate tax evasion.
The modelling tools this evolution of Game Theory will provide can also deal with a tax system’s budget inputs and the potential for corruption within any tax system.
Credit; University of Warwick
Professor Vassili Kolokoltsov comments:“Our method has a potential to be used in a variety of situations where one big player, referred to as the principal agent, confronts the behaviour of a large pool of individuals with different agendas.”
“Of course, as usual for the applications of mathematical tools to socio-economic systems, any concrete applications of the method would require a serious additional input of concrete experimental data to feed various key parameters the model relies upon,” he continues.
Professor Kolokoltsov is now working with colleagues to apply the new Game Theory technique to specific types of problem such as internet Denial of Service attacks by botnets.
Comments Off on Game Theory: Gears Of The Modern World Chaos
October 26th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
Scientists from McGill University and INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier in Canada recently released a novel investigation showing that cranberry extract successfully interrupted the communication between bacteria associated with problematic and pervasive infections.
The authors of the data published in Nature’s Scientific Reports, Eric Déziel, professor-investigator at INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier and Nathalie Tufenkji, professor at McGill University, state that not only do the results provide insights into how cranberry compounds may work, they also have implications for the development of alternative approaches to control infections.
Previously published work has shown that the American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon L) contains compounds — such as proanthocyanidins (PACs) — that provide meaningful antioxidant, anti-adhesion and anti-microbial properties that help fend off illness. Given this, the scientific team hypothesized that cranberries may also have an anti-virulence potential. They wanted to know if these cranberry compounds could help manage bacterial infections.
A coastal Washington cranberry bog
Credit: Keith Weller/ Agricultural Research Service
By feeding fruit flies — a commonly used model for studying human infections — cranberry extract, the team discovered that cranberry provided flies protection from a bacterial infection and they lived longer than their cranberry-free counterparts. In essence, the cranberry extract reduced the severity of the bacterial infection.
Study author, Dr. Tufenkji, elaborates on what this might mean for humans, as opposed to flies, “This means that cranberries could be part of the arsenal used to manage infections and potentially minimize the dependence on antibiotics for the global public.”
To further explain cranberries’ impact on bacteria, Dr. Déziel said, “Cranberry PACs interrupt the ability for bacteria to communicate with each other, spread and become virulent — a process known as quorum sensing. The cranberry extract successfully interferes with the chain of events associated with the spread and severity of chronic bacterial infections.”
Added to the evidence of cranberry’s role in preventing recurrent urinary tract infections by blocking bacteria from sticking to cell walls, the current study suggests that PACs may help control the virulence or spread of potentially dangerous bacterial infections around the world.
Comments Off on Cranberry Disrupts Harmful Bacteria’s
October 18th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
Stress isn’t good for your waist line. For older married couples, the added pounds may be caused by a spouse’s long-term stress levels.
A new University of Michigan study looked at how the negative quality of marriage can be detrimental for weight gain—possibly leading to obesity—when couples 50 and older are stressed. The results varied by gender.
The study specifically focused on chronic stress, which is an ongoing circumstance occurring for more than a year and threatens to overwhelm an individual’s resources, such as financial problems, difficulties at work or long-term caregiving.
Credit: Pixabay
Participants came from the nationally longitudinal Health and Retirement Study at the U-M Institute for Social Research. The sample included 2,042 married individuals who completed questions about their waist circumference, negative marriage quality, stress levels and other factors in 2006 and 2010. Couples were married for an average of 34 years.
Greater negative quality ties as reported by husbands exacerbated the effects of partner stress on both husbands’ and wives’ waist circumference.
Interestingly, lower negative quality ties reported by wives exacerbated the effect of wife stress on husbands’ waist circumference, said Kira Birditt, a research associate professor at ISR’s Survey Research Center.
For the increased risk of obesity, 59 percent of the husbands and 64 percent of the wives were at higher risk of disease in the study’s first assessment, whereas 66 percent of husbands and 70 percent of wives were at increased risk at the study’s conclusion.
About 9 percent of the participants showed a 10 percent increase in waist circumference, which represented an average increase of four inches of more over four years, the study indicated.
“Marriage has powerful influences on health,” said Birditt, the study’s lead author. “The stress experienced by partners, and not the individual’s stress, was associated with increased waist circumference. This effect of stress was even stronger in particular spousal relationships.”
Husbands, she said, usually experience lower negative marital quality and thus greater negative feelings may be less expected and more harmful. Because women tend to report greater negative marital quality, low levels of negative marital quality among wives may be an indicator of a lack of investment in the marriage.
Researchers said the study does not address what to do to lessen stress. However, other findings indicate that it’s important for couples to cope with stress together, and that goals created by a couple can be more effective than goals created individually.
Birditt said the findings are applicable to younger couples. Previous research has shown that stress has strong effects on marital quality among this group, too.
“We can only assume that this may translate into health effects, although they are probably not as strong on younger, often healthier, samples,” she said.
The study’s other authors were Nicky Newton, assistant professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, and U-M researchers Jim Cranford and Noah Webster.
The findings appear in the Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences.
Comments Off on Older Adults Gain Weight When Spouse Is Stressed Out
October 16th, 2016
The Daily Journalist Community.
Question introduction
When people ask me,”if I am a journalist” I reply, “I am no journalist, I am a neo-journalist.” To their surprise, I explain that I don’t want to take part in the endeavors and customs of ‘present day journalism.’ I am far, far removed from the journalistic culture observed today. I am proud that The Daily journalist supports neo-journalism and allows for everyone to express themselves freely without bias from our editorial team.
My personal conviction and research tell me Donald Trump is an opportunist, a clown and a showman, and Hillary Clinton is a straight up liar with virtually no credibility left. Casting a vote for either one would seriously challenge my principles as a journalist. I also didn’t buy into Bernie Sanders or any republican candidate. Honestly, I don’t have a political affiliation, but I believe that unifying certain attributes from different forms of government would work miracles around the world if applied properly — but who cares what I think — lets get back to topic!
As a traditional believer in journalism, its hard to watch the politicization of print, broadcast and radio networks. I’ve always despised the idea that media should play any fundamental role in deciding elections; institutional and political control over news is despicable because the idea is to report fairly without rendering a targeted agenda. News is balance, and its almost non existent today — but they are exceptions.
From a purist media standpoint, the presidential race has presented tones of undesirable biased news and politicization rather than editorial balanced control. The fact that any news network would ‘publicly endorse’ a political candidate is basically stomping the credibility of journalism. From CNN, to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton is viewed the favorable choice to endorse. She also has the support of outside players like BBC.
On the other hand, social media, independent news networks (I call them INN’s), and organizations like Wikileaks, DCleaks etc..have countered the endorsements of major networks and exposed the bias with much efficacy to the point that its an embarrassment to the very profession I support. Trump also looks favorable in the eyes of Al-Jeezera and Russia Today, which present totalitarian and biased views.
The evident bias from both sides comes from the polls and surveys that took place after the first presidential debate, and I expect the same today. I researched all the survey’s in polls in the internet and they all give you different results — many of them seem gullible. Thompson Reuters, Hostfra, Politico, NJ, Real Clear Politics, Fortune, Slate among other gave Trump the lead, but CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News among others gave Hillary the win. Social media overwhelmingly confirms the networks that gave Trump the lead, but changes might take place — I don’t know!
The war is on, and it doesn’t look like journalism will endure much longer given the biased and mixed results presented in this election; with the rise of SM, INN’s and anti-gov Org’s. I think mainstream media is already on its last brick because it follows the prototype of the 90s, not the prototype of this generation.
In your opinion:
1) Is journalism less about news and investigative journalism, and more about playing political and corporate games?
2) What do mainstream media networks politically or financially gain by supporting either candidates?
3) Do you support mainstream media networks that endorse one candidate over another? Do you think that fairness in the media is a thing of the past?
4) Do you think mainstream media is trustworthy?
5) Do you think a communications war between social media, INN’s and Anti-Gov Org’s is ravaging the internet to challenge mainstream media networks?
Nake M. Kamrany.
(He is an eminent Afghan-American development economist with superior experience in economic development who is held in high esteem by the international development community, Afghan leaders, scholars, the private sector and intellectuals. He has more than 20 publications on the political economy of Afghanistan)
“1) Is journalism less about news and investigative journalism, and more about playing political and corporate games?
As we have observed the current campaign is about misbehavior of the candidates. It is not about issues of public concern including national debt, health cost, global war, unemployment, poverty, and high tuition cost. Both campaigns are disgraceful
2) What do mainstream media networks politically or financially gain by supporting either candidates?
The media has lost its credibility as each has taken sides and have lost their objectivity. The media has lost its objectivity, it is supposed to inform the public honestly with utter objectivity. Instead it is promoting its side however false and dishonest it may be and this applies to our top newspapers including the Washington Post, the NY Times, the Los Angeles Time and others.
3) Do you support mainstream media networks that endorse one candidate over another? Do you think that fairness in the media is a thing of the past?
The media should not co-opt the judgment and decision making process of the public. They should inform but not endorse.
4) Do you think mainstream media is trustworthy? Absolutely not, major figures of the media go on TV and support their side and shamefully engage in denigration and mudslinging…
5) Do you think a communications war between social media, INN’s and Anti-Gov Org’s is ravaging the internet to challenge mainstream media networks?
I hope it does. Internet media is not monopolistic on – its way to dominate and propagate too many more people who also submit their own findings without creating coercion. To better illustrate, currently two military superpowers, namely the U.S. and Russia are pounding on the third world countries initially forming coalition and then pursuing their own strategic interest. What are the positions of the two campaign on these wars? Amazingly they are relatively quiet, it will not be politically correct to express their position.”
Geeta Madhavan.
(Specialization in International Law and a consultant to academic departments that feature International Relations programs. Visiting Faculty of Departments of Legal Studies of Defense and Strategic Studies,Madras University and Tamil Nadu Law University. Founder Member of Chennai based think tank – Centre for Security Analysis)
1) Is journalism less about news and investigative journalism, and more about playing political and corporate games?
Indeed we see that the electronic media has converted journalism into hype and hoopla just to pander to the short attention span of the watchers. News print of serious editorials still report reliable news as they are not constrained by two major factors: Time and the need to create an immediate audience have proved more reliable.
2) What do mainstream media networks politically or financially gain by supporting either candidate?
The media houses are bought or held in proxy by a handful of major corporations whose purpose of supporting a particular candidate is dictated by personal financial gain . Politically it helps them to urge, push through and even formulate political decision that have economic impact.
In India the gain is definitely huge financial success in terms of favouritism and preference by the elected candidate backed by them.
3) Do you support mainstream media networks that endorse one candidate over another? Do you think that fairness in the media is a thing of the past?
Expecting non partisan reporting is a thing of the past. Most of the media houses go one way or the other entirely based on the consideration already mentioned above.
4) Do you think mainstream media is trustworthy?
No , not completely. While some may strive to maintain a veneer of impartially, most are influenced by other considerations.
5) Do you think a communications war between social media, INN’s and Anti-Gov Org’s is ravaging the internet to challenge mainstream media networks?
Yes that is a welcome value up to a point, but the lack of accountability creates an entirely dangerous situation. No one can and should believe everything that is posted unless backed by reliable and verifiable information and facts.”
Claude Forthomme.
( Senior Editor of Impakter Magazine. Passionate traveller (80 countries+) 25 years experience in United Nations: project evaluation specialist; FAO Director for Europe/Central Asia)
“A lot of journalism is unfortunately not objective – as if the meaning of “objective” got lost with the rise of social media…And maybe it did, since social media gives voice to anyone and everyone, giving the same weight to malevolent gossip and willful disinformation as to “real” unbiased news.
Is there no role anymore for journalists in our social-media battered world? I think there is. With the frightening rise of misinformation and disinformation, I think that journalists worth the name more than ever before have a sacrosanct DUTY to report and comment on the news OBJECTIVELY and as thoroughly as they can. And some in the mainstream media already do just that.
I won’t list them all, but many are entirely honest in their reporting and comments: That is the case of those who work for the New York Times, the UK Guardian, and many many more, including the magazine where I work as Senior Editor.”
Steven Hansen.
(Publisher and Co-founder of Econintersect, is an international business and industrial consultant specializing in turning around troubled business units; consults to governments to optimize process flows; and provides economic indicator analysis based on unadjusted data and process limitations)
“Before I begin, here is where I am coming from:
- I was born and raised in California – a baby boomer;
- I was a Hearst Foundation Journalism Scholarship winner (which I declined as I really wanted to be an engineer), and was schooled for two summers at two different universities (complements of the Hearst Foundation) whilst in high school.
- I have lived outside of the USA (Europe, Asia, Africa,and the Middle East) most of my life managing infrastructure projects.
- I am writing this from Kolkata, India where I have been for the last two months.
- I publish a daily financial and economics blog because I believed most of the analysis out there is superficial or complete garbage.
- The USA media is not providing facts – whether international or domestic. They are repeating US government lines – or sensationalizing their own versions of events for ratings.
1) Is journalism less about news and investigative journalism, and more about playing political and corporate games?
A media network that does not play the game the way the government wants will not get access to tips or information. My opinion is that the USA government has turned the media into their puppets.
2) What do mainstream media networks politically or financially gain by supporting either candidates?
This election is different than past elections. We have been given a choice between one candidate who is funded by the 0.1% (who also own the media) and another candidate who seems to be shaking up the vested interests because he is a bull in the china shop. The 0.1% is happy with the current situation as they control the political process and the resulting laws and tax codes.
3) Do you support mainstream media networks that endorse one candidate over another? Do you think that fairness in the media is a thing of the past?
It is interesting to me that the majority of Americans do not seem to care ENOUGH that media open bias is taking place. Real facts are boring, and the news media has turned into entertainment show. Maybe it is part of the master plan of the 0.1% to dumb down the population.
4) Do you think mainstream media is trustworthy?
Who is trustworthy right now? Surely not the politicians, nor the 0.1%.
5) Do you think a communications war between social media, INN’s and Anti-Gov Org’s is ravaging the internet to challenge mainstream media networks?
I see so much disinformation and unsupported “facts” coming from everywhere on the internet – not just the mainstream media. I can no longer pass on to my readers any “fact” without serious fact checking. I do not pass along many things because the “facts” cannot be validated. I hate to say this – but thank God for al-Jazeera which broadcasts the most boring crap. I need a lot of coffee to listen to them but they should be commended for producing the most flat reporting of any media source.”
Peter D. Rosenstein.
(He is a non-profit executive, journalist and Democratic and community activist. His background includes teaching; serving as Coordinator of Local Government for the City of New York; working in the Carter Administration; and Vice-chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia)
“1) Is journalism less about news and investigative journalism, and more about playing political and corporate games?
I think part of the problem exists when someone can say they are a neo-journalist. I have yet to understand that. If a neo-journalist can say something like Hillary is a liar, without any real proof, then they aren’t a journalist at all. It may be that a neo-journalist is simply what we used to call a columnist, writing opinion only. I am a columnist. I write opinion as I do here. But I do try to base my opinion on some kind of facts. I believe there are still good journalists working today. They report the news without inserting their own opinion and do extensive investigative journalism.
On the other hand there is corporate interest in making money. We are seeing this in the morphing of print journalism to online journalism with the need to write headlines and put out copy that will attract ‘hits’ to the site. Now television news is even more about corporate games and getting viewers.
In the world of 24 hour cable news they have to find things to talk about for twenty-four hours a day which will attract viewers so they can attract advertisers and make money. In the case of the American election for President it was in their interest to make it appear that it was a close election. Today’s younger generations and millennials are being brought up thinking it is news when what they are so often getting is opinion. But yes the owners of the networks do have opinions and often pick sides.
2) What do mainstream media networks politically or financially gain by supporting either candidates?
They can gain viewers and if there are enough of them they make money. That is the case with FOX news. But the main networks like ABC, CBS and NBC in the United States don’t endorse candidates and try to maintain a semblance of reporting the news.
3) Do you support mainstream media networks that endorse one candidate over another? Do you think that fairness in the media is a thing of the past?
I think there is still some fairness in the major networks even if it is deteriorating. I think Cable networks like CNN, FOX, MSNBC are less fair even though they don’t yet endorse officially. Their shows and the guests they invite on their news shows are usually surrogates for candidates or issues but they still identify them that way. Print media in the United States often does endorse candidates, or take positions on issues and that is important. It is their editorial boards and they are entitled to do so. The good newspapers keep a strong line/firewall between their editorial and news departments.
4) Do you think mainstream media is trustworthy?
I think we need to view mainstream media with a jaundiced eye. There are some outlets that are more trustworthy than others.
5) Do you think a communications war between social media, INN’s and Anti-Gov Org’s is ravaging the internet to challenge mainstream media networks?
I would hope not, but it may be the case – in the long run what you get on social media is generally pure opinion not news. What is sad is that the younger generation brought up on social media doesn’t always know the difference. They often get only one side of the story on the site they visit. While social media can be great in many instances – it can bring people together and spread the word on issues or candidates – in some cases as in the United States it seems to be assisting in the dumbing down of the population.”
Halyna Mokrushyna.
(Holds a doctorate in linguistics and MA degree in communication. She publishes in Counterpunch, Truthout, and New Cold War on Ukrainian politics, history, and culture. She is also a contributing editor to the New Cold War: Ukraine and beyond and a founder of the Civic group for democracy in Ukraine)
“Unfortunately, we live in a world where there are less and less independent media. I do not know if there have been any independent media in a true sense of this word. The only way to ensure media’s independence is to support it through public funding.
I learned in a hard way how difficult it is to try to break through with an alternative point of view if you do not have an already established reputation or somebody who will invite you to the studio. There are alternative media who strive to be fair and trustworthy, such as Truth-out, Truth-dig, Counterpunch, and others. The investigative journalism is alive, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to find it in the mainstream media. An example of high-quality investigative journalism, unbiased and objective, for me, is Robert Parry and his Consortium News.
In the US the mainstream media are owned by five gigantic conglomerates. Concentration and control of the flow of information in the hands of few are very dangerous because it deprives us, readers, of diverse points of view and of facts, which the powerful few deliberately conceal. In a democratic country, there should be a variety of sources of information and a large panoply of opinions.
I am against mainstream media overtly supporting a specific candidate because it eschews objectiveness of the coverage of candidates. I do not know whether journalists of mainstream media networks gain directly from supporting a certain candidate, but owners of the media certainly enjoy political support from that candidate.
I do not believe in a complete objectiveness of journalists because we all bring our own lived experience and our own ideology. But we should be aware of this bias and control it as much as we can to ensure impartiality.
Journalists of mainstream media are not free because they have to follow editorial policy, which is defined in the offices of transnational media conglomerates. Political elite controls media discourse and as a result we get a distorted, one-sided picture of reality which fits into elite’s ideology.
To obtain a more complex picture, one has to read in several languages and use different sources. Social media are doing a great job of countering the official propaganda, but one has to be careful and critical. Unfortunately, we are losing serious, thoughtful journalism which in fact is a must in our age of information. It takes many years of education and experience to form a journalist, capable of sorting out facts and pursuing the truth. I think nothing can replace a good journalist who has a vast knowledge of history and economy and an in-depth understanding of the complexity and interdependence of our world. It is hard to overestimate the role of journalists as providers of first-hand truthful and unbiased information about what is happening on the ground. There are many good journalists out there risking their lives to inform us.
I do not see fairness in mainstream media. What I see, is big money. I do not think these two are compatible. That is why it is very important for me to read alternative sources to get as many angles at a situation as I can. Alternative media are great but they are struggling financially, and they rely on people’s donations, making it difficult for them to compete against mainstream media. To me, the alternative media represent the future because they are free from the corrosive influence of political and financial powers. It is much better and healthier for the democracy to have many sources of information reflecting a variety of opinions instead of several mouthpieces of neoliberal or neocon elites.”
Robert A. Slayton.
(Professor of History, Chapman University. Research Specialist in Housing, Chicago Urban League Author of seven books, including Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith)
“–much of tv news is driven by ratings, print much less so. Note the fuller coverage of Trump’s campaign because of its entertainment value and ratings potential.
–another indication is how intelligent, measured conversation has been left behind, in favor of a higher rated food fight. Moderators on tv news permit (and even encourage) repeated interruptions, yelling, and irrelevant digressions.
–one of the bane’s of tv news is the roundtable with campaign spokespersons going to each other. Both sides are hacks, with no critical analysis.
–media’s official support/endorsement for candidates is no longer an influential factor. There was a time when editorial were widely read and a paper’s endorsement quite important. No longer; I doubt it matters much at all these days. I remember when the announcement of a major paper’s choice was a newsworthy event unto itself. Now it is not covered at all.
–I read the print media (paper copy, not online), and use digital and tv for updates. I still get papers delivered to the door every morning.”
Paul Pillar.
(He is a Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution and an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy. He retired in 2005 from a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community)
“It is impossible to generalize fairly about “journalism” as a whole with regard to motives or objectivity. Those calling themselves journalists run the gamut from professionals committed to doing the best possible job of informing the public to polemicists who are journalists in name only.
One distinctive aspect of this year’s election is that Trump has provided more entertainment value than most candidates. Trump has gotten the benefit of a lot of free coverage from the media for that reason. In this sense media may have in some respects helped Trump’s candidacy, which in turn benefits the media financially because the entertainment aspect brings more viewers and readers, even if the media outlets themselves do not favor Trump politically. But this benefit to Trump may have gotten canceled out by the fact that there is entertainment value as well in outrageous things he says or does that result in his losing votes.
Mainstream newspapers generally uphold the tradition of keeping the editorial page separate from the news pages. There is nothing wrong with explicit editorial endorsements of specific candidates. That is much better than non-explicit favoritism creeping into the news pages.”
Adil F. Raja.
(He is an independent Political and Security analyst from Pakistan with a diverse background in Governance, International Relations, Special Ops and International Security/Political Consultancy)
“1) Is journalism less about news and investigative journalism, and more about playing political and corporate games?
A. My answer would be YES, for mainstream professional journalism. The journalist are tasked to investigate and report specific angle about specific stories by their bosses. On top of that his work is scrutinized by the editors who publish what suits best to the owner’s policies or directives. They are all employees and in this,day and age, exactly know the kind of agenda they are working for.
What kind of stories are published about which subjects are decided by the corporate bosses to make and break public opinions which have direct impact on political and financial institutions.
Information is the most precious commodity in global business, and controlling this information is the key to the global corporate systems.
2) What do mainstream media networks politically or financially gain by supporting either candidates?
A. Ownership of mainstream media is either shared by states or corporate conglomerates. The issue and control of news provides political and financial leverage to various other functions/ interests of the state/ corporate world. It’s like a department of a big store whose profits are calculated in totality.
3) Do you support mainstream media networks that endorse one candidate over another? Do you think that fairness in the media is a thing of the past?
A. Any individual with a decent thinking mind won’t ever support this hypocrisy called the mainstream media running for the political interests of their bosses.
Media can only be fair if their bosses have some sort of benefit in exposing the truth or the truth really doesn’t effect their interest at all.
4) Do you think mainstream media is trustworthy?
A. NO. To an extent, all of mainstream media is compromised due to the influences / preferences and agendas of their owners.
5) Do you think a communications war between social media, INN’s and Anti-Gov Org’s is ravaging the internet to challenge mainstream media networks?
A. This,war you talk about is compounded by the digital age. Mainstream media is finding it hard to prove their narratives. But mainstream media still possess a major imprint on the web. However, every controversial perspective of mainstream media is being challenged by INN’s and other individuals who have the ability to call the bluffs of mainstream media.
Social media trends can’t be ignored by mainstream media and these trends are mostly based on the true reflection of people’s mindset and ground realities.”
Ron Aledo.
(He is a retired U.S Army officer, former senior analyst for the CIA (ctr), former senior analyst for the DIA (ctr), operations and intelligence officer for the Joint Staff- The Pentagon, advisor to the Chief of Analysis of the Afghan National Police in Kabul and former International Business Developer for L3 Communications)
“Is journalism less about news and investigative journalism, and more about playing political and corporate games?
It is 95% about political activism. There are the puppet/ideological journalism and then there is the smart one. It is about 95% to 5%.
The puppet journalist is the mainstream ideological, both from the right and left. They lack thinking. They are just parrots that follow the official line already decided by their ideological masters. In the US Army JFK Special Warfare School (Civil Affairs, Pysops, Public Affairs) I learned how the system work: Psyops is when the Government uses propaganda in the enemy, and Public Affairs is when the Government uses propaganda in its own population.
The mainstream media is just a player or pawn of this system: the Government or the ideological Masters “ plant” a narrative, a term, or a character, and then the mainstream media just parrot it without thinking or question it.
It happens with the left with the narrative of the Police on black violence. It happens when Donald Trump gives a 3 hours long policy speech but the headline of the newspaper or the press is just about the 15 seconds sentence where the Press can make Trump look bad, it happens when Fox news uses ¨homicide¨ bomber and not suicide bomber, or when the media does not questions the nonsense of the imaginary weapons of mass destructions in the starving Iraq Hussein.
The other 5 percent is the good journalism. People that for the most part stays away from being ideological activists and either reports the news or the facts or think about them before writing. Journalist who take a ¨neutral¨ or semi neutral stand and analyze the facts, the consequences, the perspectives without being activists.
2) What do mainstream media networks politically or financially gain by supporting either candidates?
As far as politics in the USA, about 90% of the writers, journalists, reporters, must follow the ideological line of their senior editors or they get fired or their careers destroyed. Now the senior editors and producers are a combination of true believers and under pay contractors. For one they are 90% left wing secularists hardcore followers of the Frankfurt School and their precursors (Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse , Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, etc.), in the other hand there are contractors under pay as they follow orders (punch lines, talking points, narratives) from the White House (when it is under Democratic control), BLM, Planned Parenthood, homosexual activists, local left wing politicians and community activists, etc.
The ideology and business/political connections and contacts of the senior editors and owners set very straight forward the ideological and editorial line of the media. Poor reporters, with or without ideological conviction, must follow it or else: their will get fired, never be promoted, mocked by co-workers, etc.
Finally when the media, both the 90% that supports Hillary Clinton, or the lonely 10% that supports Donald Trump do their job they consider themselves ¨heroes¨ and must be awarded by their patrons, local political activists, praised by the associations, praised by Academics, and receive good treatment from ideological readers, the major, the local congressman, and if you are important enough receive privileges from the White House (when you are leftist enough).
3) Do you support mainstream media networks that endorse one candidate over another? Do you think that fairness in the media is a thing of the past?
I don’t support mainstream media, I tolerate some more than others. You need to know the ideology of a network to figure out who they support or who they attack: MSNBC extreme left, all others (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) center left, Fox News center right, WSJ neocon center-right, WND right. Fairness is 95% dead in mainstream media. It only follows ideological editorial lines and perform activism, not reporting nor serious analysis.
4) Do you think mainstream media is trustworthy?
Absolutely not. It will spin the facts to fit their narrative and ideology. Since 2014 I have read well over a 1000 articles about the Ukrainian political crisis and Crimea. About 10 have been good ones as far they are neutral, they don’t parrot the narrative or terms ¨planted¨ by the government or senior editors. All the rest are terrible.
The same happens in the US electoral campaign with the Donald Trump example I already gave you: 3 hours important policy speech with very strong and significant point, and all the media cares is the 15 second sentences where he ¨insulted¨ someone according to their narrative.
Another historic example: In May 2015 the Russian Army was parading for the first time the new Armata battle tank. In the rehearsal of the parade, a few Armatas were following the route of the parade and stopped in a designed place. After some minutes they continue their way. About 95% of the hundreds of headlines from all kind of English language newspapers were about how the Armata tank ¨broke down¨ in the rehearsal. Being absolutely desperate trying Putin to look bad the mainstream media invents and spins beyond imagination into the ridicule. They go well below kindergarten level in their desperate attempts.
5) Do you think a communications war between social media, INN’s and Anti-Gov Org’s is ravaging the internet to challenge mainstream media networks?
Yes. The few places where you can find accurate analysis of news use social media to gain a voice. Some anti govt. organization, despite having a lot of trouble very often with their own narratives, also give a voice and a space for serious analysis. At least the social media is used to inject some thinking element in to the other way ¨zombie¨ parrot like narrative: No Iraq did not and could not have WMDs, Aleppo is not controlled by the opposition but by ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorists, no you cannot impose a no fly zone in Syria because it would mean Nuclear Holocaust War, the German man with mental problems who killed 10 people was not a German with mental problems but a Syrian Muslim with a German passport who was screaming ¨Allahu Akbar¨, 70% of the refugees are not refugees, and No, the Western financed Coup in Ukraine was not a Revolution but a Western financed illegal Coup.”
Mark Chapman.
(A ripening cynic opposed to irresponsible corporatism and journalistic toadying. Focused mostly on Eastern Europe and the relationship between Russia and North America. Frequent columnist at Russia Insider)
“The entire weight of the American mainstream media and that of both political establishments is being brought to bear against Trump. He may be a buffoon and mountebank, but that is not the point; the people who intend to vote for him are being told that heaven and earth will be moved to prevent them having their choice, with each day bringing some new hysterical attack against Trump and some new endorsement of Hillary Clinton, who is indeed a serial liar. The message is that Clinton’s continuous lawbreaking, and determination to interpret the rules her own way in her pursuit of ultimate power, are a price the establishment is willing to pay in order to keep politics the province of the political class.
The illusion that anyone in America can rise to the country’s highest office has been just that – an illusion – for many years. These days you have to be not only a member of the political class, but an extraordinarily wealthy one. Trump only meets half the prerequisite; he is wealthy.
No matter which way the vote goes, the United States is going to wind up with a terrible president who is despised by something like half the electorate. That should be the story. But it isn’t; the country is caught up in the delirium of election time just as it always is, just as if things were normal.
Journalism failed the nation, in that it looked the other way when Clinton lied and lied about sending classified messages through her private server, and essentially rubber-stamped her running the job of Secretary of State off the books. The FBI failed the nation by entering into deals which allowed Clinton to get away with deleting tens of thousands of emails that no investigator now has any opportunity to rule upon, just on her word that they were personal, and agreeing not only to not depose certain key staff members, but to leave their personal computers untouched.
Journalism continues to fail the country by screaming daily about the latest horrible thing Trump has said or done, while ignoring new leaks of information damaging to Clinton. The establishment failed the country by not holding Clinton to account. And now that whole establishment is allied against Trump. And with the playing field tilted almost perpendicular in Clinton’s favor, it’s all she can do to stay a couple of points ahead in the polls.
That tells its own story.”
Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.
(His research interests focus on the international relations, particularly with reference to the EU’s affairs, the United Nations affairs, the US foreign policy and prevention of conflict-studies. He contributed to the publications to the Daily Dawn (a leading English newspaper) and the Pakistan Observer (an Islamabad-based English daily)
“Answer 1: Reflections on today’s journalism
The investigative journalism finds its ideological moorings via two approaches: critical and thorough. Critical means that journalism is not merely passing on ‘news’ that already exist. It implies news, which would not be available without any journalistic intervention. This can be done by creating new facts, but also through re-interpretation or correlation of facts already at hand. Thorough means that one makes an own substantial effort, either in quantitative terms – much time spent in research, many sources consulted, etc. – in qualitative terms – sharp questions formulated, new approaches used, etc., or a combination of both. Currently, the world wide main stream media focus less on the real news and investigative journalism rather than the obsession about the political news coverage led by corporate news, has been the trend of the day.
Mainstream media plays a dominant role in shaping the opinions and changing the mindsets of the people. On the other hand the alternative media rivet the maverick thoughts of the people in general. Some of the countries , mostly the developed countries have succeeded in regulating their media to bring the thoughts of the people and the policy of the government in harmony with each other. In this way, the media has been weighted and restrained while the corporate organization keep their hold on the mainstream media, by literally owning the media houses.
Simultaneously, upright amalgamation provides giant tycoons to play more efficiently to market their products and services which in turn increases their economic and political power. In all this scenario, one most vital thing that is usually forgotten is that a well informed population guarantees the smooth functioning of the democratic institutions. This concentration of media ownership has raised concerns of a homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers. As a result, the mainstream media is also being utilized in diverging, disparaging, derogatory and decrying manner which in turn brings the prejudicial views all over. This whole process has largely caused to damage the credibility of news reporting.
According to philosopher Noam Chomsky, media organizations with an elite audience such as CBS News and The New York Times, successful corporations with the assets necessary to engage in original reporting, set the tone for other smaller news organizations which lack resources by creating conversations that cascade down to smaller news organizations using the Associated Press and other means of aggregation.
Answer 2: The political and financial gains of mainstream media
The mainstream media helps in formulating the policies and distinguishing the benefits while penetrating its influence in the domestic and foreign spheres through the US Congress and other government institutions. Here, one can’t help borrowing the thoughts indoctrinated by Barry Sussman, the editor of Nieman Watchdog in 2012.Here it reads:
“There just isn’t enough good journalism, and there is too much forfeiting when it comes to seeking out important news. War coverage is a dismal case in point. As John Hanrahan wrote on this site, at any given time only handfuls of American reporters have covered the news from Afghanistan these last 11 years; as Sig Christenson reported in 2007, aside from the big, elite media only three regional news organizations consistently sent reporting teams to Iraq during the war there. Imagine: two terrible, lengthy wars with hardly any coverage. In surveys we did, Nieman Fellows around the world lambasted the American press – gave it a grade of D – for its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war, and implored American reporters to get out of their “he said, she said” political mode, a lament that still applies.
As a group, the traditional U.S. press has badly failed at reporting dissent in America – there’s abundant newsworthy protest but you can seldom tell it from the news media – and has failed at reporting on poverty, failed at follow-up reporting on the Bush administration torture policies and other actions, and failed to sufficiently report the Obama administration’s high-handed refusal to deal with those issues. Instead of ridiculing the obstructionist Republican party leadership in Washington and the states, as it should, the mainstream press treats them as if they have goals other than serving large corporations and the rich and suppressing the vote. Not to defend Democrats, but if the press did decent, steady reporting on politics, made fun of GOP fantasies, and if the Democrats behaved, as Paul Wellstone once put it, more like the “Democratic wing of the Democratic party,” then it would be hard to imagine more than a few Republicans winning national office. The press ignores climate change, a world crisis, for weeks at a time. Corporate influence on America and the remnants of a labor movement are seldom reported on at all.” It is no secret that by installing its influence in the governmental functionaries and multinational corporations, the mainstream media gets its financial and political interests.
Answer 3: The practicing proclivity of mainstream media to support the presidential nominee
I can’t endorse the role of media including the corporate influence regarding the pampering of Republican or Democrat Presidential candidate. The seemingly reflected trend– in the US print and electronic media to make a divide line about their respective choice regarding the future president of the United States not only paves the way for vertical and horizontal polarization in the media walls, but also largely reflects on their unfair, unjust and unilateral thinking. Yet, unfortunately given the US presidential campaign history, looks to be a wishful thinking. But in this is the age of information and technological advancement where people in general would long for remaining more informed, it looks that the mainstream media cannot be isolated from the coverage of the events like the Presidential elections are in the run. Apart from the print media or the electronic media there numerous slots available on the social media to make people aware of one’s opinion which is marked by the speed of information and interactivity.
Answer 4:The question about the trustworthy role of mainstream media
The role of the mainstream media is far more than just reporting ; framing the opinion, changing the trends, transforming the ideological directions and sometimes constituting the policies. Nevertheless, there remains a dire need to maintain the intricate distinction between information, entertainment, and advertising in the age of “infotainment” as well as the distinction between facts and opinions; the right of reply on the Internet; the ‘right to be forgotten’ on the net; the limitation period for press offends online.
There are two fundamental ways of thinking about the state of journalism across the globe. The first is reflected in headlines and stories describing violence against any particular community, caste or creed or group of persons. This tragic trend is typically found in countries that have little or no tradition of democracy and, consequently, no appreciation for the watchdog role of a vigorous press. The second view finds newspapers remaining a thriving industry, growing in some regions and shrinking in others, although less dramatically than newspapers in the United States. In many countries where freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed, brutal censorship abounds while journalists are targets of government repression.
The birth of the Internet and the spread of communication technologies that evolved with it have led to new forms of written mass media and brought to light new communication habits. Two major changes are the renaissance of opinion expression and the increase in author-reader interactivity. But – besides shifts in information processing and velocity, the inclusion of multimedia applications and the increased opportunity for writer-reader-interaction – provide and open new modes of journalistic writing different from the past, redefined with new vistas of thinking and responsibilities in journalistic career.
The Doctrine of News says the facts come before the story-which is a fait accompli. It behaves as though news merely expresses or reflects previously existing facts – facts which would have arisen, in the same form, instead of being truly covered or thought by the journalists. But undeniably so many facts are subsequently created for journalists to cover. Not only by spin-doctors and PR firms but also by everyone who realises that anyone could be famous for fifteen minutes.
And consequently, these newsmakers only know what facts to create, in order to get coverage, from a study of existing coverage. Different coverage would lead to the occurrence of different facts. A whole structure has evolved, in order to provide journalists with facts to report. This is what an Official Sources Industry, with news resources–already deployed in clusters around it.
In this way of creating facts before the news/story comes, the Doctrine of News obscures the process by which the facts arise. Telling it how it is excludes– telling how it comes to be– Journalism therefore connives in its own manipulation, with Official Sources automatically validated by the existence of client corps of correspondents and the rest. And it is also observed that in many cases the range of change discussed within Official Sources excludes a real challenge to the forces active in shaping the lives of audience members. This has resultantly and gradually declined the credentials of news as a monitor and register of significant change thereby leading to the vanished readers.
Answer 5:The communication war, emergence of neo-journalism & internet
Yes of course there is communication war– between different pivots of media centres—reflected by the ongoing parallel competition between the print media, electronic media, social media and internet or online journalism. Given this scenario of conflict and competition of media war, the role of neo-journalism once again, seems to be more pertinent and befitting. The diversity of neo-journalism lies in the fact that it gathers its strength from its relevance to describe a kind of horizontal communication where traditional walls separating genres and roles played by protagonists disappear (the journalist is no longer the master of the sources)” (Murhula et al. 2008, p. 86). Today, participatory technologies (blogs, micro-blogging, social networks) allow a series of actors scattered throughout places and institutions that do not correspond with the traditional journalistic field to have access to public discourse .But it would not be wrong to say that such a growing informational and technological convergence is turning the Internet into a centralizing media that easily integrates written, visual, and audiovisual information formats.”
John Mariotti.
(He as spoken to thousands of people in the business, professional and university audiences in the US and Europe; he hosted a one-hour talk-radio show on the North American Broadcasting Network, (The Life of Business & the Business of Life); founded & moderated, The Reunion Conference, an annual round table/think-tank for 16 years)
“1) Is journalism less about news and investigative journalism, and more about playing political and corporate games?
Certainly yes, but more than political and corporate games; sensationalism reigns. Investigative journalism has become “gotcha” journalism and no level of snooping is off limits. Fewer and fewer forms of media actually report news in an unbiased way. Why? Because writing news in an unbiased way is hard. Human nature comes into play. Everyone has biases and no matter how hard they try, the biases sneak into their writing. Thus, what they do, is just write what they think, not what actually happened. Publications gain readers like political parties—by “playing to their base”—and thus they entrench the biased perspective of their readers. This is what has polarized America politics almost beyond repair.
2) What do mainstream media networks politically or financially gain by supporting either candidates?
The principle motivation of mainstream media is not per se that they gain financially—although they do—by “playing to their base” because it increases the readership/viewership by their base. Most of the issue is that at least 75-80% and sometimes as high as 90% of those who are the reporters and writers on mainstream media are Democrats and lean heavily liberal in their beliefs—so that’s how they report things. Some do it for ulterior motives; some just do it because it is what they believe. Many actually gather information to reinforce their leanings—but such data gathering is similarly slanted—as they gravitate toward the information that reinforces what they already believe. Considering that their “bosses,” who control their jobs and futures, lean in the same direction, if they try to become objective or contrarian, they jeopardize their jobs. When fired, they move to a place that is aligned with what they believe, thus deepening the entrenched bias.
3) Do you support mainstream media networks that endorse one candidate over another? Do you think that fairness in the media is a thing of the past?
There is no doubt that “fairness” in the media, if interpreted to mean objectivity, is dead. Everyone has opinions and leanings. Media attracts those who reinforce their already existent leanings. Of course media will continue to endorse candidates who reflect what they believe and agree with. Ironically, in races like the Trump vs. Clinton, where both choices are flawed, the most objective media can choose to endorse neither—leaving readers to gather information and vote based on their own perception—and equally flawed, but easily adopted form of abdication.
4) Do you think mainstream media is trustworthy?
No. Some are more honest and objective than others, but most are prone to go with the prevailing pressures, from readers, editors, publishers, owners or party campaign staff, feeding them information and motivation to support the “party line,” whatever that happens to be. The INNs are “potentially” more honest (that’s different from objective), since they have few or no “bosses” per se. Social media is not trustworthy.. It is like a mob or crowd where whoever yells loudest and longest gets heard most. Social media is nothing but messages biased by those most adept at and aggressive with using it to shape opinion (they hope) to fit their idea of what’s right.
5) Do you think a communications war between social media, INN’s and Anti-Gov Org’s is ravaging the internet to challenge mainstream media networks?
Since half of the American population is either apathetic, uninformed, misinformed or too intellectually challenged to digest more than 7-second sound bites, the mainstream TV and cable media have more influence than deserved. Newspapers influence traditional readers, but totally miss the millennials and many other groups who seldom look at newspapers (other than the sports or entertainment sections). INNs have a chance to grow in stature—if, and only if, they behave more responsibly than the current mainstream media. That’s a big IF.
6) The question you failed to ask: About the election just 30 days away:
A wise person once said, “Believe half of what you see, and none of what you read.” That may be unduly cynical, but with the growth of the Internet and its ability to broadcast lies and distortions so far, so fast, and in such quantity to so many people, the liars are thriving. How else could Barack Obama be at over 50% approval rating, and Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have such broad followings? Ironically, this election is about maintaining Obama’s legacies of big government, tax and spend, secular-socialist welfare state, with the US running ever greater deficits, managed by a terrible leader (Hillary) who is a proven congenital liar, and untrustworthy to the max.—Versus Donald Trump, a “greedy capitalist,” strong, free enterprise advocate, who is wanting a revolution, and a return to American First in trade and foreign policy, but his past record of lax morals, narcissism (that rivals Obama’s), outrageous/tasteless statements and oversized ego leads him to say deplorable things, do stupid things and make up things that defy even his most ardent supporters credibility. What a terrible choice to make, and one that is worsened by media bias.
I, for one, am fed up with the status quo, therefore I am anti-HIllary to the max. I am also very concerned about what Trump’s ego might cause him to do, BUT we need change in how America is governed, AND if HE is the price of doing that, it may be worth that risk—as scary as it is.
Either one will be a massive challenge for a Congress that has been marginalized by Obama and its own inability to come together and get past the polarization. The media is no help at all, sensationalizing every utterance, every email and every action, to generate readership, but not advance the cause of finding the balance of truth and reasonable thought.
The best voting strategy is to “hold your nose to vote” for President and VP (Pence is clearly better than Kaine—he’s the first tie-breaker), and concentrate on keeping the best possible people in Congress, especially the Senate—hoping that those 500+ elected officials will steer our country on the right course, no matter who occupies the White House.
That leaves us to the second “tie-breaker”—SCOTUS— which a Clinton presidency will tilt so far left, that America will be unrecognizable in a decade or two. That’s why I am an entrenched NEVER HILLARY voter. “
Jon Kofas.
(Retired Indiana University university professor academic writing. International political economy — fiction)
“INTRODUCTION: Journalism and the Open Society
In contemporary US, and in most countries, the media presents itself as a sentinel of the ‘public interest’. This implies that ‘public interest’ is universally encompassing and equally distributed in its benefits for all classes. The implication is that there is no difference for a pauper than a billionaire when it comes to the media reporting on fiscal policy, health care, minimum wage, or corporate welfare vs. social welfare. When delivering news, analysis, and opinion, the media operates under the self-ascribed assumption that it works in the name of the nebulous ‘public interest’, deliberately sidelining the reality of a class-based structure and an institutional system rooted in elitism and inequality.
In this brief essay, I examine the degree to which the media as a guardian and promoter of the status quo hinders the broader public interest in favor of the elites. Although this ought to be self evident because the very rich own media corporations, it is far from the case. The media’s self-ascribed role as the ‘Fourth Estate’, guardian of truth and public welfare, presents the image of neutrality. This essay examines whether the media undermines social justice in its incessant effort to sustain the bourgeois social order and institutional structure of which it is an integral part. In this respect, the media’s goal the question is whether the media attempts to inform and educate or create robo-citizens and keep them in a zombie-like state.
Some believe that the media is a catalyst to freedom and democracy as it claims. Others claim it reflects a system of authoritarianism operating under the cloak of freedom and democracy invariably equated with consumerism. Is the media the catalyst to social progress or sociopolitical conformity? Do corporate media organizations protect the ‘public interest’, as they likes audience/readers/listeners to believe, or is their goal maintain the hierarchical social order by manufacturing consent and forging consensus among a broad spectrum of the population? (Edward S. Herman, (Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy and the Mass Media, 1988.)
In the age of universal education and technology that permits users to access all kinds of information instantly from around the world, molding public opinion is seemingly more difficult than it was in the pre-internet era. It is especially challenging in the political domain because a segment of the population rejects the idea that it has a choice in electing public officials who have been pre-selected by the party apparatus and financed by the wealthy with the finalists presented to the public for their approval. Similarly, it is becoming challenging for the corporate media to mold public opinion that individuals lacking in good character traits are to blame for structural problems in society not the system rooted in absence of social justice.
While there are difficult challenges for the corporate media, which is also interested in turning a profit by presenting the news and analysis it chooses to publish both entertaining and substantive, sensational and empirical, there is no doubt that even people who are very skeptical of the media’s role in society are profoundly influenced by it. In fact, despite the emergence of social media representing many voices from around the world, the mainstream media rapidly intertwined with social media remains dominant in shaping peoples’ world-view. This is because of its vast access and because it accords itself a sense of legitimacy that small social media lacks especially considering its ‘unfiltered nature’.
Corporate media journalists would have the robo-citizens, which they are helping to manufacture, believe that the process of reporting and analysis is carried out by ‘objective’ reporters and analysts who transcend their contemporary setting and are somehow above earthly affairs. On 8 August 2016, the New York Times published an article entitled “Trump is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism”, an article that clearly accepts as reality ‘objectivity in journalism’. This is the same newspaper that has a long history of biased reporting and analysis in every area from foreign affairs to domestic politics. The paper was openly biased against Senator Bernie Sanders and always favored Hillary Clinton with reports intended to mold public opinion; yet, it considers itself ‘objective’. Claiming that there is such a thing as journalistic objectivity not just by the New York Times but all corporate media organizations is essential to maintain a sense of legitimacy and authority in the domain of serving the public interest. lhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0
A couple of years after 9/11, an Argentine colleague mentioned to me that a journalist from the university where he was teaching in Buenos Aires attended an international conference on journalism. An American journalist making a presentation insisted that American journalism rested on the foundations of objectivity. The irony was that conference was underwritten by corporate sponsors, including think tanks with a very clear ideological and political orientation and corporate-owned media organizations where reporting and analysis must always fall within the prescribed corporate ideological and sociopolitical perimeters. Despite this reality evident to any journalism undergraduate of a journalism school usually named after a corporation or a millionaire donor, mainstream journalists and analysts insist on presenting themselves and their profession as ‘objective’; this even as they find themselves in a self-censorship mode because they know there is no other way to keep their job.
One reason for the claim to objectivity is that many countries have tightly controlled media, while newspapers and media outlets in many countries are linked to political parties. The assumption that corporate media is not state or party affiliated affords journalists and media organizations the illusion that they are indeed ‘objective’. This implies that they are no different than nuclear physicists conducting research and writing for scholarly peer reviewed journals. Needless to point out, humanities and social science under whose domain journalism rests is not physical science. There is a methodological difference as well as differences in the objectives and goals between the scientific endeavors of a geneticist and a journalist.
Presumably, all journalists have a sense of the profession’s methodology and history as well as how the profession is practiced in other countries despite the homogenized nature of the field in the age of corporate media consolidation. Of course, historically, bourgeois liberals have accorded themselves the privilege of ideological objectivity to distance themselves from both leftists and rightists. The temptation to make subjective reality into an objective science governed by natural laws of the physical universe is a never ending quest of the corporate media precisely because it serves narrow class interests rather than the illusory ‘public interest’. A central reason that the corporate media insists on projecting the image of a field as objective as astrophysics is that its goal is mass ideological, political, social, cultural conformity; creating and maintaining robo-citizens, rather than the quest to overthrow the unjust institutional structure.
Just as the church in Western Christendom, the Byzantium and Islamic Middle East once represented themselves as the infallible representatives of God’s Truth in all domains of life, in our contemporary world the media accords to itself a similar lofty role to maintain credibility by its very structure. Of course, there are many more dissenting voices in our time in comparison to Medieval Europe, Byzantium and the Middle East when the vast majority of the population remained docile and superstitious. However, like the church was an institution helping to preserve the status quo by engendering conformity among the faithful, the media has assumed such a role in our secular pluralistic world.
A History Synopsis of the Press and in Bourgeois Society
Coinciding with the rise of nation states during the nascent stage of capitalism in the 16th century, the advent of the printing press accounted for the first newspapers in Europe. As early as 1400 European merchants printed stories about business conditions, while governments issued news bulletins around the beginning of the 17th century. Although News Letters and gazettes existed in the 17th century sporadically, England’s Daily Courant was the first daily paper in 1702 with limited circulation considering the very low number of literate individuals.
The first Industrial Revolution in England, which coincided with the Age of Reason (Enlightenment) centered in 18th century France, laid the foundations for universal education to prepare people for the changing workforce. The foundations of journalism as we know it were established in that transitional period as much for Europe as for America. Because Western journalism has its ideological foundations in the Age of Reason when the bourgeois value system replaced that of the church identified with the landowning nobility since the era of Frankish Emperor Charlemagne, it is hardly an enigma that journalism mirrors the bourgeois social order and institutions that also have their origins in the 18th century. The ideological foundations of journalism rest in the pluralism of the Enlightenment that coincided with the American and French revolutions thrusting the bourgeois elites into the forefront of society.
The socioeconomic hegemony of the bourgeoisie by the 19th century throughout the Western World, in European colonies, and spheres of influences around the world entailed that the bourgeois model of journalism would become prevalent and remain so until this day. Part of journalism’s role was to publicize ‘bourgeois democracy’ as the ‘natural’ system of government best suited for the ‘natural’ economic system of capitalism; a theme on which that Adam Smith dwelled in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes Wealth of the Nations (1776). A theme of the Enlightenment, it was widely accepted that man is able to apply the laws of nature to society and create a more rational institutional structure that would better serve mankind. However, Enlightenment thinkers reflected the rise of the bourgeoisie who believed the old aristocratic social order was anachronistic. The goal was to replace the old elites in society with the bourgeoisie that reflected far reaching and rapid changes in the evolving capitalist economy and claimed to embody the welfare of all people.
Bourgeois journalism necessarily promoted the distinct awareness in the public debate of the private sector (merchant capitalists, industrialists, bankers and landowners) vs. public sector realm with the former fighting to mold public policy that would further strengthen capitalist interests. In 1962, Jurgen Habemas’ Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere described the development of how bourgeois society evolved during the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries and how the increasing role of the public sphere entailed the weaving of ideological, political, cultural and socioeconomic developments inculcated into the public dialogue.
Amid increasing public awareness of the private sector-public sector dichotomy, which journalism helped to promote, public opinion became an integral part of the bourgeois political landscape. By the second half of the 19th century with the vast expansion of the middle class in Western countries, especially the US, capitalists and politicians, academics and journalists began to take more seriously the citizen as a consumer. Considering the expansion of the educated lower middle class developing self-conscious as a political force, this meant that journalists had the task of presenting the bourgeois political economy as all-inclusive and participatory. Therein rested the challenge of apologists who needed to explain the contradictions of a system rooted in inequality as democratic or equal merely because it afforded ‘the opportunity’ to all for upward social mobility.
Hardly was an issue before the French Revolution, public opinion redefined the concept of the ‘national interest’, identifying it with ‘the people’, presumably all people – all people outside the realm of aristocratic privilege, as the Abbe Sieyes argued in “What is the Third Estate?” In reality, the political economy marginalized not just the working class, but women, immigrants and minorities, while insisting on embodying the ‘public interest’.
Dichotomous thinking about state power versus civil society, which theoretically represents all people but in fact the elites, was imbedded in liberal bourgeois thought since the early 19th century. This remains prevalent in our times even more so than in the past. Journalism has always reflected this dichotomous thinking, and as an integral part of the bourgeois institutional structure. Never questioning its own ideological assumptions, journalism cannot engage in self-criticism beyond the confines of its ideological assumptions, as the hypocritical New York Times claim of objectivity illustrates. Instead, it accepts as gospel truth its ideological assumptions and self-righteous and self-anointed role as public interest sentinel.
Nationalism and patriotism have been catalytic for journalism in molding robo-citizens and defending the status quo. Wars from the Napoleonic era down to the regional conflicts of the early 21st century only strengthen the fervor of nationalism as a secular religion considering individual identity with the nation-state. Across Europe and the US since American War of Independence, nationalism has been the opium of the people, largely because journalism helps to promote it as such. The political and socioeconomic elites use war to rally support around the flag despite the fact that military policies serve the very narrow interests of defense-related industries, banks and business sectors linked to defense. Rarely questioning the elites they serve, journalists enthusiastically fall in line operating under the illusion that they are serving the public.
As Habermas argued, the public sphere’ which journalism proclaims to represent and reflect is an imaginary community. More significant, there are inherent contradictions in the liberal-bourgeois constructs of journalism’s assertions as the political economy is in a constant state of evolution. Mass politics and consumerism capitalism by the turn of the 20th century obviated the bourgeois public sphere that was a reality when Alexis de Tocqueville was writing Democracy in America in the 1830s. The challenge for bourgeois journalism is how to project the image – the illusion – of the elitist bourgeois social order as representative of all of society in the age of mass politics. Right-wing populism made famous in the mid-19thcentury in Western Europe was one answer to the puzzle, though by no means the only one.
With the creation of trade unions and working-class based political parties, class consciousness became more ubiquitous, realizing that corporate journalism did not embody working class interests. Anti-establishment journalism representing workers was inevitable. However, government and business adamantly fought against it because it challenged the orthodoxy of mainstream journalism’s legitimacy as representative of the social contract and public interest. At the same time that moguls like William Randolph Hearst. Joseph Pulitzer, and Lincoln Steffens dominated the mainstream press, dissenting voices such as Upton Sinclair, Ray Stannard Baker, and John Reed presented the world from the viewpoint of the masses rather than elites at the turn of the 20th century.
The age of mass politics forced mainstream journalism to adopt ‘reformist’ positions in order to avoid revolutionary solutions that some among the leftist intelligentsia and radical trade unions demanded. By the 1930s when the social welfare state became a necessary means to preserve the bourgeois social order and the Axis Powers were posing a serious threat to Western bourgeois democracy, journalism once again had the challenge of reflecting on the contradictions of its methodology and claims as an objective mechanism of information in society.
Historically, bourgeois journalism defended the social order and economic system that the state served, while castigating politicians as the enemy. This strategy by mainstream journalism diverted focus from capitalism as the root cause of social problems, placing blame on politicians, although politicians served capitalist interests. This was as much in the Great Depression as after WWII. Once the social welfare era of the New Deal ended with Truman launching a Cold War, the corporate media reflected the new political reality with the goal of engendering mass conformity to the regime of anti-communism and loyalty to the capitalist system and bourgeois society at home and around the world.
Reporting, news analysis, and editorial opinions centered on ‘the present danger’ of Communism at home and world-wide, while subordinating civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights or any issue pertaining to social justice. Journalists never questioned the assumptions of the Cold War. They did not even question allegations made by Senator Joseph McCarthy against citizens accused of Communist sympathizing, and they never bothered to investigate if those allegations and list of names existed. If they wanted a job, they needed to worship at the same temple as the state and corporations. The same type of journalistic practice prevailed during the George W. Bush administration that declared war on Iraq based on fake claims of weapons of mass destruction.
The global anti-Communist crusade during the Cold War and counter-terrorism crusade in the early 21st century were convenient excuses to engender conformity in a society that set aside democratic principles and practices, including First Amendment rights. Silencing dissent of any kind that questioned anything from the corporate world to the defense establishment has been the norm. Amid such propagandistic quest by mainstream journalism, the challenge for journalism has been to present its goal as defending the public interest, freedom and democratic principles, while in essence the goal was to suppress all they claimed to defend.
Because dissent was thoroughly crushed by the state in very subtle ways, the corporate media’s task has not been as daunting as it may appear. After all, every institution from churches to schools works toward the same goal of helping to create robo-citizens whose identity and values rest in a consumerist culture. Public opinion matters only within the narrow perimeters of the corporate neoliberal ideology. The result has been creating ‘robo-citizens’ ‘zombified’ because journalism is reduced to propaganda and an extension of government and business public relations departments. (Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1962) and Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (1964)
Because journalism is necessarily reduced to propaganda and conformity to the bourgeois social order necessitates it, the blurring lines between advertising and news become so evident that they are hardly distinguishable. Adding to this framework the advent of tabloid journalism that exploded since the 1980s, we have a cult of the rich and famous media focused on the personal lives of the elites and celebrities rather than reporting and analyzing problems in the lives of the average citizen.
This does not mean that there has not been popular reaction to the corporate media’s incessant endeavors to manufacture robo-citizens. The evolution of American society in the 1950s and 1960s toward a civil rights and anti-war mode by large segments of the American middle class forced yet another shift in public policy. Forging bourgeois consensus that entailed the media’s goal was to help bring along the robo-citizens became necessary to maintain public confidence in the social order and political economy. Toward that goal, the media helped to drive across to the American public that consumerism was equated with democracy.
As Herbert Marcuse argues, consumerism as a form of social control is at the core of the corporate media that molds the perception of freedom; equating subjugation with freedom, as long as one has the ability to purchase it in the form of consumer goods. In short, the media constantly projects the bourgeois materialist value system as universal that must be embraced by all people; something that resembles more a Fascist corporatist goal than a democratic one. The media defines the illusory public sphere within the consumerist confines and all programing on TV from news broadcasts to situation comedies presented from such a prism to reinforce the value system.
Since the Civil Rights movement, which addressed legal issues for minorities and women, society has shifted more theoretically than in practice to reflect that class transcends gender and race. To make sure that the masses are convinced there is indeed equality and social justice, the ubiquitous drug of political correctness emerged to provide the cloak of democracy. No institution has been better in delivering the political correctness pill to the masses than the corporate media.
Beneath the thin veil of political correctness rest the ugly realities of institutional racism as we have seen with the treatment of minorities by the criminal justice system and police killings of black youth; sexism as statistics regarding wage inequalities and job promotion; xenophobia and Islamophobia that is in fact openly celebrated within the Republican Party and covertly practiced by liberals hiding behind political correctness. Political correctness has become a substitute for social justice and even those castigating it realize its usefulness to protect the image of the pluralistic society. As long as one speaks/writes politically correct words, what’s the point of addressing deep-seated institutional racism, sexism and xenophobia through public policy?
Political correctness along with consumerist values have resulted in more conforming robo-citizens in the age of the internet that theoretically permits greater pluralism. Subjugated by consumerism and technology that become substitutes for human freedom and creativity, the one-dimensional human more readily accepts political correctness only as long as the political economy is perceived to offer the faint hope of realizing the American Dream. People are eager to be robo-citizens because they know that is the way to survive in the workplace and in society demanding conformity.
But what if hope to realize the American Dream becomes distant, as it did by 2016 amid the presidential race, no matter how conforming the robo-citizen has become? A large segment of the population turns either to right wing populist solutions that borders on neo-Fascism, or a more left-oriented one that resembles a New Deal society that FDR built in the 1930s to save capitalism from self-inflicted wounds. In such scenarios, the corporate media is faced with contradictions in the political economy so glaring that it has no choice but to strip away the mask of objectivity, especially as it must weigh in its own financial and strategic interests. (Justin Lewis, Beyond Consumer Capitalism: Media and the Limits of Imagination, 2013)
1) Does Journalism Solely Advance a Political and Corporate Agenda?
From the early 1980s until the present, there have been a number of bestselling books arguing that the media is ‘left-leaning’. Upon a closer examination of the term ‘left’, one discovers that critics are referring to a liberal ideology with a multicultural slant that reflects a pluralistic society, deliberately stigmatizing it for advocating ‘big government’. In other words, left for rightwing critics means any favorable of issues that many in the Democratic Party espouse, ranging from abortion, to racial profiling by police, women’s right to equal wages, gay rights and other lifestyle issues, from a fairer tax system and an environment policy based on science not profit.
Needless to point out, the ‘left-leaning’ media that the extreme right wingers so label does not address social justice issues, income inequality, mass illegal surveillance of citizens, human rights abuses, war crimes the US commits against innocent civilians as recorded by international human rights organizations. In fact, anyone covering Keynesian economics favorably would be a Communist, although Keynesianism was the salvation of capitalism in the 1930s.
The result of right wing criticism against the ‘left-leaning’ media has meant the increasing right wing orientation of all media to the degree that political and business consensus is a universally shared goal by the corporate-owned media. This is regardless of whether journalists favor Republican or Democrat candidates whose goal is after all to carve policy intended to strengthen the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the dwindling middle class and workers. After all, the media is a business and it relies on ad revenue sources for its survival. Journalists know they cannot pursue a career unless they fall in line with the corporate ideological and political position of the corporate media mogul employer.
The media cannot offend its corporate sponsor by covering a labor strike from the perspective of labor, or covering equal pay for equal work from the perspective of immigrants, blacks and women. At most, the media will mention such grievances but always tilt reporting to favor business in the name of ‘jobs creation’, even if that means the employers are paying below poverty level wages, oppose unionization, collective bargaining, worker benefits, health and safety. Pro-business reporting is invariably backed by politicians siding with business. Therefore, the political establishment lends to media a sense of legitimacy, while dismissing the grievances of workers, women and minorities as contrary to the economic national interest.
The multi-billion dollar corruption scandals involving big banks and investment firms such as Wells-Fargo and Goldman Sachs are news-worthy only in-so far as Justice Department fines are causing stock market instability rather than reflecting systemic corruption symptomatic of capitalism. Popular protests against police killings of unarmed black youth, which protests may cause several hundred of several thousand dollars damage to property, are newsworthy as indicative of a segment of society that breaks the law. In short, the media treats the hundreds of billions defrauded by Wall Street investment firms as part of doing business and refuses to condemn it as a major crime against society. Wells Fargo CEO retired under pressure because of his bank’s corrupt practices, but instead of going to prison, he received more than $100 million in severance pay. At the same time that the media reports this as normal business practice, it has no problem denouncing as criminals popular protesters against police racist violence. Such reporting by the media is a very clear reflection of the corporate agenda with political undertones.
Although some have argued that former General Electric CEO Jack Welch was the first to introduce the concept of corporate agenda through NBC network, this practice is as old as TV that always relied on corporate sponsors and government in order to survive and thrive. The combined pressure on journalists from both their corporate employers and government simply prevents any kind of reporting and analysis that deviates from prescribed perimeters. The trick is to appear genuinely critical when in fact the goal must remain to eulogize the status quo. Mostly through the use of populist rhetoric, journalists are able to accomplish as much while in essence remaining faithful to the corporate goals and political objectives of the employer.
In theory, the First Amendment guaranteed free speech as much in the 19th century as in the early 21st century. However, in practice corporate journalism practices what the political and business climate wants both in domestic and foreign affairs. In case reporters deviate, both government and corporations have all the leverage at their disposal to remove them. For example, in extreme cases ever since the Espionage Act of 1917, which was intended against enemies and traitors, government has given itself the right to go after journalists. Ironically, the ‘liberal’ Obama administration has used the Espionage Act more liberally to make sure there is conformity to US policy in all matters from illegal surveillance to overt and covert military and intelligence operations. At the same time, journalists are often subject to covert surveillance just in case they try to circumvent official positions of corporate media and government.
2) What Does Media Networks Gain Politically or Financially by Supporting either Candidate?
The obvious media favoritism to Clinton and opposition to Trump stems not just from the financial gain that Wall Street envisions under her pro-business administration, but also from Trump’s neo-isolationist rhetoric that would have the US abandon its traditional role as the world’s policeman. The combination of Trump’s economic nationalism that US multinationals detest, his pro-Russia overtures and protectionist tilt directed at Mexico and China where US corporations have substantial investments made him unacceptable for most corporations.
It is hardly a secret that from George Washington to the present there have always been capitalists behind politicians pushing their agendas. Both Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt had corporations that backed them and others that adamantly opposed them. The press simply reflects the division in political support among the elites that agree on the merits of capitalism but disagree on how capitalism must operate and under what political system. The problem comes when the media organizations fail to disclose conflicts of interest, campaign contributions, or other entanglements between the corporate media and government or political parties.
Absence of full disclosure and transparency regarding financial interest and/or influence by media organizations has always been an issue when it comes to the relationship between media and political parties. Political analysts are invariably paid by the corporate network, think tank, government or business. Lobbyists, political consulting firms and certain corporations have political affiliations with either or both parties. It is no secret that a number of billionaires, including the Koch Brothers, are contributors to right wing politicians and causes. Others, like Warren Buffet and George Soros have sided with the Democrat Party. In other words, billionaires are not of one mind about how capitalism ought to function, any more than they are of one mind about how government ought to function.
The socioeconomic elites have no illusions that the state exists not as an arbiter for all social classes equally and fairly, but to maintain the social order. Nevertheless, there are ideological and political divisions among the elites that invariably link themselves to one or the other party while at the same time trying to influence party platform. For example, the Democrat Party of the Clintons and Obama operating under a neoliberal economic agenda hardly resembles that of FDR in the 1930s. Wall Street in collaboration with the entrenched leadership within the Democrat party made sure that it turned toward a rightist course from Truman to the present. Similarly, the Republican Party of Donald Trump has no resemblance to that of Eisenhower largely because the Republican elites moved farther to the right ideologically to the degree that they are not far off a European neo-Fascist party. The media mirrors these shifts accordingly, as it is an integral part of the socioeconomic elites that own it and support it through advertising.
A disturbing trend of course is rapid media consolidation permitting fewer voices of expression while continuing to perpetuate the illusion of choice. In 1983, fifty companies owned 90% of US media, whereas in 2016 six companies owned 90% of the media. The media corporate giants are GE, Viacom, Disney, CBS, Time Warner, and News-Corp. In 2010 media revenue was about $275 billion. Whereas in 1995 it was illegal by FCC rules for any company to own more than 40 radio stations, in 2016 Clear Channel (iHeartCommunications) owns more than 1200 stations. It is an enigma that anyone can claim that this kind of media concentration is reflective of all people and the ‘public interest’.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
Tax policy is one area where government has leverage over the media and is able to use it. It is no secret that the Bush administration used the tax leverage with the media to secure more favorable coverage of its militarist foreign policy toward Iraq where it claimed there were weapons of mass destruction and an enclave of terrorism posing a threat to the Western World and Israel. VIACOM, parent company of CBS, caved to administration pressure because it had a financial and political incentive at a time that all other media had fallen in line. This does not mean that the sole incentive of the media is a financial one, although it is an important one because at the end of the day the media exists to make a profit while struggling to keep the citizenry docile and in conformity mode to the institutional structure.
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/05012004/may-june04corp1.html
3) Is There Fairness in Media?
As we have seen already by briefly examining the history of bourgeois journalism, there has never been ‘fairness’ in media because that implies it is a scientific endeavor rather than a political one and it represents all classes rather than the capitalists. Naturally, there are journalists who verify stories better than others for accuracy and try to present more than just one viewpoint. However, in cases where there is even be an attempt to condemn the capitalist system and the political structure under which it operates the journalist will be out of work.
This does not mean that is all cases there ought to be two sides of the story. For example, should journalists writing about the Third Reich’s “Jewish Question” have been presenting the pro-Nazi position as morally equivalent to that of the Holocaust victims? Should journalists writing about the Ku Klux Klan’s lynching activities have been presenting the story from the perspective of the black victims as well as their executioners justifying their activities? Clearly, this is where the question of values, morality and journalistic principles enters into the picture. The editorial policy embraces a set of values and principles based on its ideological and political position, thus the stories presented to the public are ipso facto a perspective reflecting editorial policy.
Even media watchdog groups are as biased if not more than the media. For example, the conservative Accuracy in Media (AIM) organization insists that the media has a liberal bias. Considering the funding historically comes from large corporations such as oil companies, it comes as no surprise that AIM adamantly opposes Democrats with an environmental and socially progressive agenda, blaming the Black Lives Matter movement rather than analyzing how the media covers the police favorably and how unfavorably it portrays minorities. The liberal Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) claims that there is a conservative bias in news reporting and analysis.
If we go beyond the US and look at the media around the world, it is eye-opening how the exact same story, let us say the war in Afghanistan or the inner city police shootings of black youth are reported so strikingly different. The American audience relying on the mainstream media is left with a completely different impression than its counterparts around the world, although the headline news stories are on the same subject.
What is not reported at all, or reported but glossed over or sensationalized is just as important as what is covered in depth. Editorial decisions are made on the basis of a set of criteria that have nothing to do with ethics rooted in the welfare of the public, but rather the profit motive, serving a political and business agenda. Media reporting on foreign affairs, economy, social issues and culture are all focused on the corporate/national security model and always to the deliberate exclusion of social justice at home and human rights abroad.
The most recent example of manipulation rather than fairness is media involves the Trump sex tapes and Clinton emails. On 7 October 2016, the Trump sex tape revelations coincided with a US announcement formally accusing Moscow of hacking in US computers, namely of the Democrat Party, to steal information and make it available through WIKILEAKS. The government and the Clinton campaign focused on the hacking of John Podesta’s computer by Moscow but never denied the substance of the contents in the emails that are indeed proof that Clinton is beholden to Wall Street.
The US government and media would have a great deal more credibility on this issue if they could present the evidence that Russia was indeed behind the computer hacking, but also if the US did not have a history since the Spanish-American War of overthrowing governments or interfering in the free elections of other countries. Just as the US was accusing Russia of interfering in the US election, Washington is actively trying to overthrow Assad and refuses to permit elections even if Assad agrees to step down as long as he or anyone linked to him is a candidate. Perhaps the hypocrisy here is lost on the public because no media organization would dare ask by what moral authority is the US condemning another country of interfering in its elections when it has been doing the same thing in Russia and around the world for more than century.
It is true that Russia prefers Trump who wants cordial relations with Moscow, whereas Clinton will definitely continue the policy of containment and confrontation. Although Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the idea, even if true, does it invalidate the reality of the candidate’s campaign promises to the public versus her promises to contributors? The issue for the pro-Clinton media is not that she privately opposed the $15-dollar federally-mandated minimum wage because it would be an anathema to her corporate campaign contributors but that Russia was behind the leaks. Does the process of delivery invalidate the content and exonerate Clinton and her staff? These are issues on which the media is divided depending on which candidate they favor.
In manufacturing consent, the media manufactures robo-voters who follow the vast political machines of the two parties stretching from the local level to the highest office. The robo-voter operates within the confines of the existing political system, never questioning the system that she/he deems as natural as the change of seasons. The key to the success of molding robo-voters is for the media to project the illusion of freedom of choice. So entrenched is this illusion of choice in the American institutional structure that during the Cold War the CIA encouraged a two party system in a number of countries around the world, as long as both parties operated within the confines of the capitalist economy and accepted economic integration with the West.
This is not to suggest that there are no differences or disagreements about specific policies, political parties and individual personalities on which media organizations fight over. Conservative media organization FOX News bitterly disagrees with the New York Times ideologically and politically; the former attracting religious and social conservatives and mostly whites, while the latter attracts a more educated readership from the largely urban professional class across racial and ethnic lines. Media demographics play a role and it is evident by the types of advertisements that they attract.
Opposing views are within the context of the two-party system that determines policy because there are billions of dollars at stake in government contracts and subsidies for corporations depending on whether their favorite candidates is elected from the local level all the way to the presidency. Inter-sector competition for political influence has been intense because political parties tend to favor certain sectors over others, something that has been evident through the republic’s history. Naturally, the media reflects this inter-sector competition – non-renewable energy sector industries vs. renewable (solar and wind) energy sector, more regulation on pharmaceutical companies vs. less regulation on agrichemical industries. The task of the media is to convince the public that regulation is bad, although public opinion polls indicate that 56% favor more health insurance regulation, 55% more pharmaceutical regulation, and 48% more energy regulation. It is the media’s job to convince people they are wrong about their own self-interest. http://ehstoday.com/news/ehs_imp_36921
Because the media presents the issues in the context of ‘jobs to be gained or lost’ although the issue is profits for specific sectors from defense to agribusiness, the rob-voter is left with the impression that the politician running for office is either a facilitator or an obstacle to jobs creation while the corporation’s fate rests with government. In fact, the politician’s fate rests with the corporations whose agenda government must advance. While the role of lobbyists is well known in policy making and even drafting entire pieces of legislation, the media will never go so far as to condemn the system that allows for such practices to the detriment of the majority.
4) Is the Media Trustworthy?
Historically, the press can ruin or promote a presidential candidate; drive him to move toward war as was the case with Woodrow Wilson in WWI, or drive him to withdraw reluctantly from conflict as was the case with Nixon during the Vietnam War amid the Watergate scandal. As an instrument of forging popular consensus and keeping a robo-citizenry preoccupied with issues ranging from petty inner city crime to the drug addiction problem, from entertainment news to human interest stories, the media largely defines the agenda for society rather that accurately reflecting it. Because of its role of prioritizing news and deciding what to eulogize and what to condemn, a large segment of the public does not trust it.
Public opinion polls clearly indicate that the level of public trust in the media is very low. Conservatives and extreme right wing elements see the media as an instrument of the liberal establishment that opposes gun control and supports abortion, homosexuality, and open borders. Progressives see the media as a corporate-controlled instrument catering to a political and economic agenda that further strengthens business and political elites whose only goal is to maintain the existing social structure and institutional order to the detriment of the majority. Such dichotomous public perception of the media is not confined to the US but it is a global phenomenon considering that globalization has meant the media transcends national borders.
The people that the media calls upon for commentary and analysis, the people they interview, the way editorial decisions are made to present a story are all elements indicative of what it wishes to project to its audience. For example, a story on US drones killing an innocent families in Afghanistan focuses on the technical flaw of the operation with a military officer arguing that drone warfare is designed to deliver strategic hits at the lowest possible cost while sparing the lives of US soldiers. Dismissed as collateral damage, the victims are not the focus of US media coverage.
However, when a Russian plane hits a civilian target in Syria, there is in-depth coverage of the victims and strong condemnation of Russia’s war crimes vs. the mere accident in which US drones are involved in killing civilians. The American public on the receiving end of such media coverage naturally concludes what the media and government want about these two cases. When one bothers to go into the web for more critical coverage of such issues within the US and around the world it becomes clear that the US corporate media lacks as much credibility as the media in Russia or China. Just as nationalism works in favor of Russian media’s credibility so is the case for the American media. In other words, the robo-citizen’s identity with the nation-state – Russia or US – makes it easier to accept one-sided media versions.
Despite factors working in its favor, the media has an image problem, according to all public opinion polls. According to Gallup, only 32% of the American public trusts the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly”. This percentage is the lowest since 1972, reflecting a trend that is actually broader across the entire Western World. There are other polling organizations that have the public trust of media in the single digits, but all polling must be taken with some measure of skepticism because the respondents decrying the media’s credibility rely on it for their news and their views are shaped by it.
As younger people receive their news through social media outlets, and the mainstream media is identified with people over thirty, the future looks brighter for social media than for the mainstream that will eventually absorb or have a working relationship with the major social media outlets delivering news. Interestingly, older people express much greater confidence in the media than young people, and Democrats more so than Republicans. http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
5) Is There a Communications War between Mainstream Media and Social media and anti-Gov Organizations?
Social media largely reflects what is already in the corporate media, but it is to an extent grassroots, unfiltered and far more representative of society in its raw form than the mainstream media. Much has been written about how social media is taking over, and statistics indicate that in the US at least it has a dominant role. After all, the market capitalization of the three social media sites amounts to more than $400 billion, making it as powerful as any corporate media organization.
It stands to reason that social media is invariably influenced by the corporate institutional content and reporting/analysis methodology. Moreover, its users rely on the mainstream media for content, though not exclusively. YOUTUBE video of events around the globe have revolutionized the media because it is simply impossible for the BBC, CNN, New York Times or any mainstream media organization to compete with that kind of instant raw news coverage. One might be amazed to discover that 62% of adults rely on social media for their news information. However, it is from the top ten sites that have a massive market capitalization, reflecting the kind concentration we see in the corporate media. http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/
Of course there is a vast difference between the mega social media sites such as FACEBOOK and TWITTER and smaller ones struggling for an audience in a highly competitive environment. Mainstream media apologists argue therein rests the problem. To increase visits to the site, social media will post just about anything no matter how offensive, how fictitious, how useless to the edification of the public. Small social media have no resources to compete with the corporate media, while the larger social media are slowly evolving into the new mainstream media. Not only does the larger social media follow a corporate business model, but in fact commercializes its users’ information for profit and cooperates with government agencies to track their activities. In this sense, social media could be seen as a tool serving the surveillance state and making a profit in the process.
Social media represents just about every ideological, political, religious, and cultural perspective that exists in the world. In the absence of any quality or any other control filters, social media often provides the raw ideas and sentiments of people who may be strong advocates of a socially just society or one of racial purity based on male hegemony and hierarchy. Invariably, small social media is up against both corporate media that defines the ‘news-worthy’ issues and the manner they are covered, and they ms compete with the large social media outlets that operate profitably and at the same serve as surveillance vehicles on behalf of business and government.
Only large organizations such as TWITTER and FACEBOOK enjoy broad influence, but they are used as much by the elites as the ordinary person. And an anti-government and anti-establishment vehicle, WIKILEAKS has influence in the world of non-traditional media. This is because they secure material that the mainstream media cannot obtain and will never do so in the manner that WIKILEAKS does. Unlike WIKILEAKS, the mainstream media’s mission is to preserve the status quo rather than undermine it with embarrassing leaks. This is not the case with the other large social media organizations that are as conformist to the bourgeois social order and political economy as the mainstream media, but with an “Open Door” policy to dissent.
Media outlets outside the perimeters of the mainstream media have played a role in society, as evidence in grass roots movements like Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street. However, social media already reflects not just grassroots rebel elements, but reactionary ones as well. In fact, there are hate groups, neo-Nazis and just about every element imaginable on social media, a few with very creative and educational content and style, others merely intended to capture the unsuspecting reader’s attention with sensationalism unrivaled by the filtered mainstream media.
In-so far as the mainstream media’s goal is to create robo-citizens and forge bourgeois consensus that serves the elites, it is fairly homogenized in that respect. By contrast, social media is as diverse as the population and its various ideological, political, religious, cultural orientations. In other words, even without the garbage filtered out of social media, it is actually far more representative of society than the elitist corporate or state-owned media. While the large social media organizations are an integral part of Wall Street and as cooperative with US intelligence and national security agencies as the corporate media, the goal is to reflect the pluralistic nature of society rather than to engender sociopolitical conformity as the corporate media aims regardless of liberal or conservative ideological position of the specific news organization.
The top stories on social media fall in the category of ‘human interest’, fashion and lifestyle. In other words, the type of material that the mainstream media covers as well, considering that network morning news is indeed not much different. Not a single one of the top 25 news stories on social media in 2015 dealt with political, economic or social issues, reflecting the tastes of readers. However, this reflects the conditioning of the robo-consumer that the mainstream media has already molded; social media simply represents continuity.
The underlying assumption about social media vs. corporate media is that the former tends to be more liberal than the latter despite open access for just about anything on social media. Just as the New York Times and CNN had a news reporting and analysis bias in favor of the Democrat Party, so do some of the large social media organizations. However, both large social media and mainstream media news organizations are corporate owned and have a stake in the market economy and the two-party system that sustains it. Neither would advocate the overthrow of the social order and institutional structure that accounts for America lacking in social justice, human rights, and a quasi-police state – minorities gunned down merely because of racial profiling and mass secret surveillance of the public as we now know after Snowden and WIKILEAKS.
Just as the radio came along to compete with newspapers and then television, social media has fallen within the bourgeois mold because it is an integral part of an existing system that it did not invent simply because the technology is different than a newspaper. Although mass communications are significant in society, radio and TV were not responsible for social change and neither is social media in our time. Technological innovations have an impact in the delivery of news, but this does not mean anything when it comes to the social order and institutional structure that remains unchanged. The success of social media rests on the existing system as much as it does for the corporate media.
Conclusions
Contrary to the manner that it presents itself, the media is not above the existing political system; not above the existing social order; not above the economic system; not above the cultural milieu as though it is observing events on earth from a giant spaceship without any self-interest in earthly affairs. The media is in fact a reflection of the bourgeois institutional structure and value system and guardian of the status quo. In so far as it serves it and benefits from it, its role is to perpetuate not change or alter it for the sake of creating a more just society. On the contrary, the media is the catalyst to keeping the masses indoctrinated so they remain in conformity robo-citizen mode to the existing social order and political economy.
Because the media is an instrument of preserving the status quo, it is and always has been the vehicle of the political and socioeconomic elites. As society evolves and objective realities in the lives of people have moved beyond the illusions that the media perpetuates about what constitutes a just society, social change will necessarily entail that the media will obviate its own usefulness because it will be a marginalized instrument of the elites exposed as merely that and nothing more. Modern technology will obviously have an impact on how public opinion is molded, but it will be on the margins because we have seen already how new technology is used as part of police state surveillance methods and more thorough commercialization of personal information.
Because of corporate control of media, with government on its side, the class war is now more intense than ever. However, it is not a class war in the traditional Marxian sense where workers are struggling for their rights against capitalists. There is a new type of class war, one launched by corporations with government and media in all its forms on their side against society that they wish to keep subjugated for the sake of greater profits. In this new class war, the army is made up of journalists, analysts, well-paid experts from academia, think tanks, corporations and government all working toward the same goal of strengthening the capital, the defense establishment and edging ever so closer toward a police state. “
Jaime Ortega-Simo.
(The Daily Journalist president and founder)
I’ve read tons of different polls and most –except for mainstream media networks –have clearly Trump ahead of Hillary. I know how surveys and polls work very well, but I don’t understand how mainstream media networks have conducted such numbers that set Hillary well over Trump by a significant lead. It just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
The editorial board is not really responsible for the decisions that take place inside the upper management rooms behind close doors. I know tons of journalist, who profoundly detest the fact that they can’t fish for serious investigative stories on the bureaucratic networks they represent. They’re told how to write, and what to write; they are told the deadlines and the limitations that preclude evidence. I know inside-out the whole game and routine. They’re many great journalist that get paid ‘pigeon bread’, and not so qualified journalist who work for mainstream media networks that get paid generously — Its a sad outcome!
The media has inflicted an irreparable self-wound on their credibility as a whole. The fact that media pick sides to endorse a politician is an evident sign of editorial whoredom taking place on many news desk across the country.
One of the main reasons why I started The Daily Journalist, was based upon the lack of serious journalism produced in most mainstream media networks. It is almost comical what some of these networks report, and its even more comical the biased agenda they try to represent.
Unlike the past when news networks were family based businesses, journalism today has been infiltrated by corporations that exploit the credibility of the media with an uncanny appetite for financial growth.
The basis of neo-journalism is that all information can flow freely under a news platform without imposing bias or ban from the editorial board. If a contributor writes a story that reflects pro-capitalism, another can write a story promoting socialism, communism or even anarchism and not worry about censorship. The editorial might agree or disagree with the opinion of the contributor, but it is not the editorial’s responsibility to deny and reject any article based exclusively on dogmatic preference —I think such act is ethically wrong and self-destructive. What does anyone gain banning people’s opinions or well research stories? Those that promote political agendas will clearly answer such question — I just can’t.
Social media has taken the spotlight and thwarted the manipulative agenda driven by most mainstream media networks. I’m somewhat happy that social media today has the ability to mirror the lies mainstream media networks promote, and poses a seriously challenge to the status quo with counter-arguments difficult to censor outside the media radar.
INN’s have also grown larger in numbers, and have and are taking away millions of viewers who traditionally support mainstream media networks. INN’s can also be biased, if they represent a certain political faction or ideology, but they tend to produce greater investigative efforts than many journalist working for mainstream channels because they’re not influenced by huge financial benefactors that would careless about news credibility only focused on collecting green stacks.
Social media has not shown signs of regulation from government yet, but I highly suspect that if it can change the outcome of elections, censorship will inevitably become a malevolent reality.
Journalism is under siege, and the elections have shown a rigged system where editorials are clearly under the influence of donors that support the politicization of media. I speculate, that many mainstream media networks have truce with Hillary Clinton’s campaign in exchange of favors and large sums of money.
The Clinton machine has raised over $500 Million in campaign contributions, and well over 28 percent come from super-pac’s and other organizations –some undisclosed — which include foreign donors as her emails show. How does she spent $500 Million only on TV, Radio and Social Media ads? She has probably paid mainstream media networks to support her campaign, and as the inform reader knows, George Soros and the Clinton Foundation are active partners with CNN, and the New York Times.
The journalist might view Donald Trump as a buffoon, but corporate America see Trump as revolutionary that could possibly end and inflict a serious challenge to their investments worldwide. He is an elitist, who understands how trade works at a transnational level. What kills Donald Trump’s campaign is his own ego and big mouth, but he does represent to an extent the values of millions of Americans who are sick and tired of Wall Street. If Trump doesn’t win, its going to be rise of the Quakers all over again!
The US is divided as it is. But its the media responsibility to fairly report and balance the issues that surround controversial political disclosure without imposing editorial politicization to the public sphere. The media is going to inspire a civil revolution in the near future. At this point, I really believe that politicians, bureaucrats, elitist and media networks are unstoppable, but there is one caveat and that is the military. In my opinion under a severe financial collapse, the military will retake the country and we can all say ‘adios’ to global corporatism and enter a neo-totalitarian system.”
Comments Off on Are Mainstream Media Networks Biased?
October 11th, 2016
Unlike drugs, active implants such as electroceuticals act locally, have fewer side effects and function directly through electrical signals, much like the body itself. Fraunhofer researchershave developed a new technology platform that can power active implants wirelessly via ultrasound. The experts are targeting widespread diseases such as high blood pressure, diabetes and Parkinson’s.
Scientists at the Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering IBMT in Sulzbach developed a demonstrator that powers active implants wirelessly via ultrasound. The technology is a viable alternative to battery power and induction, as the device is smaller, requires no integrated batteries and is more efficient than inductive energy transfer.
Ultrasound waves have a broader range in the body and they penetrate the implant’s metal casing more easily than electromagnetic waves. The ultrasound waves are also capable of bidirectional transfer of information, such as the temperature of the implant or details regarding the type and intensity of electrical stimulation.
The Fraunhofer IBMT team will present their device at the Medica 2016 World Forum for Medicine in Düsseldorf from November 14 to 17 (Hall 10, Booth G05).
Basic structure of ultrasound power supply and communication.
Credit; © Photo Fraunhofer IBMT
Treatment for high blood pressure, diabetes or Parkinson’s
The demonstrator, designed as a universal technology platform, can be adapted for various applications and model variants. It can be powered with or without a battery and can be configured for a wide range of applications for active implants. One example is the treatment of common diseases such as high blood pressure, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. The research team developed a complete system that includes the transmitter outside the body and the receiver in the implant. The demonstrator also falls well below stipulated regulatory limits for ultrasound treatments on the human body.
“We’re seeking industry partners at the trade fair to develop our technology platform into a concrete product. The technology could be developed within a year,” says Andreas Schneider, manager of the Active Implants working group at IBMT. In May 2016, market research company BBC Research valued the market for microelectronic medical implants at 24.6 billion US dollars and predicted that this figure would grow to 37.6 billion US dollars by 2021, assuming an average annual growth rate of 8.8 percent.
Ultrasound waves are mechanical waves, emitted and absorbed by piezoelectric material in transmitters and receivers. The piezoelectric transducers change shape imperceptibly when a voltage is applied. This deformation releases mechanical waves, similar to sound waves from a loudspeaker, which then strike the piezoelectric receiver. The waves also cause the receiver to change shape, but with the difference that exactly the opposite reaction occurs: the deformation produces an electrical current.
An alternative to drugs
Active implants are able to support certain bodily functions in people with illnesses, and to compensate for dysfunctions. Usually inserted just under the skin, they can control heart rhythm (pacemakers), support sensory perception (retinal and cochlear implants) and control artificial limbs (prosthetic hands). Measuring just a few centimeters, these small medical devices also handle some other major tasks, such as dosing drugs and supporting bone growth. “Our bodies work by means of electrical signals. Active implants model this functionality,” Schneider explains.
Peter-Karl Weber from the main department Ultrasound at Fraunhofer IBMT adds: “Some improvements can be achieved with drugs, but the disadvantage is that they act indirectly and affect the entire body. Active implants act directly and locally where they are needed.” The scientists hope to see widespread diseases such as high blood pressure and diabetes treated this way in the near future. “To achieve this, we will need more powerful, miniaturized, yet robust technologies. We have shown that ultrasound is a new way forward for powering active implants,” says Weber.
The basic structure of active implants has barely changed in recent years. Just like the first commercial pacemakers, they are composed of electronic components that are hermetically encapsulated in a titanium casing. Electrical feedthroughs in the titanium casing and cable connections conduct electrical impulses directly to electrodes in the cardiac muscle. The basic problem remains the power supply. Batteries have the disadvantage that they take up a lot of space – often half of the implant – and need to be changed regularly in a surgical procedure.
Induction, which functions through electromagnetic wave transfer of energy and information, became an established wireless alternative for implants: two coils convert electricity into magnetic fields and then back again. The drawback here is that the electromagnetic waves are shielded by the metallic implant casing, “similar to the concept of lightning striking a Faraday cage,” explains Schneider. For this reason, the coils must be placed outside the casing. “With our technology, the ultrasound receiver is inside the hermetic casing, directly on the casing wall. The implant wall and the receiver form a single system that permits ultrasound waves to be received and emitted,” says Schneider.
Comments Off on Wireless Alternative To Drugs: Treatment for Diabetes, High Blood Pressure or Parkinson’s
October 7th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
The Sun’s activity is determined by the Sun’s magnetic field. Two combined effects are responsible for the latter: The omega and the alpha effect. Exactly where and how the alpha effect originates is currently unknown. Researchers at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) are putting forward a new theory for this in the journal Solar Physics. Their calculations suggest that tidal forces from Venus, the Earth and Jupiter can directly influence the Sun’s activity.
Many questions regarding the Sun’s magnetic field are still unanswered. “As with the Earth, we are dealing with a dynamo. Through self-excitation, a magnetic field is created from virtually nothing, whereby the complex movement of the conductive plasma serves as an energy source,” says the physicist Dr. Frank Stefani from HZDR.
The Sun’s so-called alpha-omega dynamo is subject to a regular cycle. Approximately every eleven years the polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field is reversed, with solar activity peaking with the same frequency. This manifests itself in an increase in sunspots – dark patches on the Sun’s surface which originate from strongly concentrated magnetic fields.
Solar cycle.
Credit: SOHO (ESA & NASA)
“Interestingly, every 11.07 years, the Sun and the planets Venus, the Earth and Jupiter are aligned. We asked ourselves: Is it a coincidence that the solar cycle corresponds with the cycle of the conjunction or the opposition of the three planets?” ponders Stefani. Although this question is by no means new, up to now scientists could not identify a plausible physical mechanism for how the very weak tidal effects of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter could influence the Sun’s dynamo.
Strengthening through resonance
“If you only just give a swing small pushes, it will swing higher with time,” as Frank Stefani explains the principle of resonance. He and his team discovered in recent calculations that the alpha effect is prone to oscillations under certain conditions. “The impulse for this alpha-oscillation requires almost no energy. The planetary tides could act as sufficient pace setters for this.” The so-called Tayler instability plays a crucial role for the resonance of the Sun’s dynamo. It always arises when a strong enough current flows through a conductive liquid or a plasma. Above a certain strength, the interaction of the current with its own magnetic field generates a flow – in the case of the colossal Sun, a turbulent one.
It is generally understood that the solar dynamo relies on the interaction of two induction mechanisms. Largely undisputed is the omega effect, which originates in the tachocline. This is the name of a narrow band between the Sun’s inner radiative zone and the outer areas in which convection takes place, where heat is transported using the movement of the hot plasma. In the tachocline, various, differentially rotating areas converge. This differential rotation generates the so-called toroidal magnetic field in the form of two “life belts” situated north and south of the solar equator.
A new recipe for the solar Dynamo
There is significant lack of clarity regarding the position and cause of the alpha effect, which uses the toroidal field to create a poloidal field – the latter running along the Sun’s lines of longitude. According to a prevalent theory, the alpha effect’s place of origin is near the sunspots, on the Sun’s surface. The Dresden researchers have chosen an alternative approach which links the alpha effect to the right- or left-handedness of the Tayler instability. In turn, the Tayler instability arises due to strongly developed toroidal fields in the tachocline. “That way we can essentially also locate the alpha effect in the tachocline,” says Frank Stefani.
Every 11 years the polarity of the sun’s magnetic field is reversed. Could the weak tidal forces of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter directly influence the sun’s activity?
Credit: NASA/SDO
Now the HZDR scientists have discovered the first evidence for the Tayler instability also oscillating back and forth between right- and left-handedness. What is special about this is that the reversal happens with virtually no change to the flow energy. This means that very small forces are enough to initiate an oscillation in the alpha effect. “Our calculations show that planetary tidal forces act here as minute external pace setters. The oscillation in the alpha effect, which is triggered approximately every eleven years, could cause the polarity reversal of the solar magnetic field and, ultimately, dictate the 22-year cycle of the solar dynamo,” according to Stefani.
The scientists surrounding Frank Stefani have been researching magnetic fields in the cosmos and on Earth for many years. They were also the first group in the world to successfully prove both the Tayler instability and the magnetorotational instability in laboratory experiments. In 1999, the specialists in magnetohydrodynamics were also involved in the first demonstration of the homogeneous dynamo effect in Riga.
The Tayler instability restricts new liquid-metal batteries
“Interestingly, we stumbled upon the Tayler instability in the context of our research into new liquid-metal batteries, which are currently being investigated as possible inexpensive storage containers for the strongly fluctuating solar energy,” explains Frank Stefani. The fundamental principle of liquid-metal batteries is extremely simple. It consists of two liquid metals of differing densities – the electrodes – which are only separated by a thin layer of salt.
The Tayler instability poses a serious danger to novel liquid-metal batteries.
Credit: HZDR
The benefits are an extremely quick charging time, an (at least theoretically) infinite number of charging cycles and low costs, if a battery which is one square meter in size can successfully be produced. “For these batteries, the Tayler instability poses a serious danger because it inevitably arises when the cells get bigger and bigger. Without certain technological tricks, which we have already patented, the Tayler instability would destroy the battery’s stratification,” adds Stefani.
Comments Off on How Venus, Earth and Jupiter Influence The Sun’s Activity
October 6th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
CLINTON FOUNDATION FOREIGN DONORS
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION REVEALED THE NAMES OF ITS DONORS AND A RANGE OF CONTRIBUTION TOTALS UPON SECRETARY CLINTON’S APPOINTMENT AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Associated Press On Clinton Foundation Donors: “Governments, Corporations And Billionaires With Their Own Interests In U.S. Foreign Policy Gave The Former President’s Charity Millions Of Dollars.” “The world opened its wallet for Bill Clinton. Governments, corporations and billionaires with their own interests in U.S. foreign policy gave the former president’s charity millions of dollars, according to records he released Thursday to lay bare any financial entanglements that could affect his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton as the next secretary of state.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
Associated Press: Clinton Foundation Disclosed Its Donors After “A Decade Of Resistance To Identifying Them” And “Did Not Identify Each Contributor’s Occupation, Employer Or Nationality.” “The foundation disclosed the names of its 205,000 donors on its Web site Thursday, ending a decade of resistance to identifying them. It released only the names of donors and the range of their contributions. It did not identify each contributor’s occupation, employer or nationality or provide any other details. The foundation said separately Thursday that fewer than 3,000 of its donors were foreigners but it did not identify which ones.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
Associated Press: “Presidents Typically Do Not Release The Names Of Donors To Their Foundations, And…There Also Was No Legal Obligation For Them To Do So.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
AMONG THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DONORS REVEALED IN 2009 WERE SEVERAL FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WHO HAD GIVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Associated Press: As Of January 2009, “Saudi Arabia, Norway And Other Foreign Governments Gave At Least $46 Million” To The Clinton Foundation “And Donors With Ties To India Delivered Millions More.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
Foreign Government Donors To Clinton Foundation Included Saudi Arabia, Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy, Jamaica, And Tenerife. “According to Clinton’s list, Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the foundation. Other government donors include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy, Jamaica and Tenerife in the Canary Islands. The Dutch national lottery gave $5 million to $10 million.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
Australian And Dominican Government Agencies Each Gave Between $10 And $25 Million To The Clinton Foundation. “AUSAID, the Australian government’s overseas aid program, and COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico, a Dominican Republic government agency formed to fight AIDS, each gave $10 million to $25 million.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
WHEN HILLARY CLINTON BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE IN 2009, BILL CLINTON AGREED TO STOP ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION FROM MOST FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Associated Press: “President-Elect Barack Obama Made Hillary Clinton’s Nomination As Secretary Of State Contingent On Her Husband Revealing The Foundation’s Contributors, To Address Questions About Potential Conflicts Of Interest.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
Associated Press: When Then-Senator Clinton Became Secretary Of State, Bill Clinton Agreed To “Not Solicit Money Or Sponsorships” For The Clinton Global Initiative, Which Would “Cease Accepting Foreign Contributions.” “The former president agreed to step away from direct involvement in the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual charitable conference where businesses and many foreign governments pledge donations to help ameliorate AIDS, poverty and other social ills. He will continue serving as CGI’s founding chairman but will not solicit money or sponsorships. The CGI will cease accepting foreign contributions and will not host events outside the United States.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
2009: Bill Clinton “Agreed To The Gift Ban At The Behest Of The Obama Administration, Which Worried About A Secretary Of State’s Husband Raising Millions While She Represented U.S. Interests Abroad.” “In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad. The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
IN THE PAST, SOME OBSERVERS HAD LINKED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DONATIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND SECRETARY CLINTON’S WORK AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Breitbart: “As Of 2008, The Clinton Foundation Raised At Least $46 Million From Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, And Other Foreign Governments–The Very Governments Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton Eventually Negotiated With.” “The nexus between Clinton Foundation donors, foreign governments, and corporate interests has long been a concern to government watchdog groups. As of 2008, the Clinton Foundation raised at least $46 million from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, and other foreign governments–the very governments Secretary of State Hillary Clinton eventually negotiated with. Wealthy foreign investors, like Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid and Indian politician Amar Singh gave at least $1 million each.” [Breitbart, 8/14/13]
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION CAME UNDER INTENSE SCRUTINY IN FEBRUARY 2015 WHEN IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE FOUNDATION HAD ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AFTER SECRETARY CLINTON LEFT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Wall Street Journal: “The Clinton Foundation Has Dropped Its Self-Imposed Ban On Collecting Funds From Foreign Governments And Is Winning Contributions At An Accelerating Rate.” “The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Wall Street Journal: “Recent Donors [To The Clinton Foundation] Include The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany And A Canadian Government Agency Promoting The Keystone XL Pipeline.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Wall Street Journal: Canada’s Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Agency “A First-Time Donor, Gave Between $250,000 And $500,000” To The Clinton Foundation In 2014. “One of the 2014 donations comes from a Canadian agency promoting the proposed Keystone pipeline, which is favored by Republicans and under review by the Obama administration. The Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development agency of Canada, a first-time donor, gave between $250,000 and $500,000. The donations, which are disclosed voluntarily by the foundation, are given only in ranges.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
- Wall Street Journal: Canada’s Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Agency Was “Promoting The Proposed Keystone Pipeline” Though “The Canadian Donation Originated From An Agency Office Separate From The One That Advocates For Keystone XL.” “One of the 2014 donations comes from a Canadian agency promoting the proposed Keystone pipeline, which is favored by Republicans and under review by the Obama administration. The Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development agency of Canada…One of the agency’s priorities for 2014-2015 was to promote Keystone XL ‘as a stable and secure source of energy and energy technology,’ according to the agency’s website. The Canadian donation originated from an agency office separate from the one that advocates for Keystone XL, a Foundation spokesman said.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Wall Street Journal: “At Least Four Foreign Countries Gave To The Foundation In 2013—Norway, Italy, Australia And The Netherlands—A Fact That Has Garnered Little Attention.” “At least four foreign countries gave to the foundation in 2013—Norway, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands—a fact that has garnered little attention. The number of governments contributing in 2014 appears to have doubled from the previous year. Since its founding, the foundation has raised at least $48 million from overseas governments, according to a Journal tally.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Wall Street Journal: “The Number Of Governments Contributing [To The Clinton Foundation] In 2014 Appears To Have Doubled From The Previous Year.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Wall Street Journal: “Since Its Founding, The [Clinton] Foundation Has Raised At Least $48 Million From Overseas Governments, According To A Journal Tally.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
First-Time Donor United Arab Emirates Gave The Clinton Foundation $1-5 Million In 2014. [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
First-Time Donor Germany Gave The Clinton Foundation $100,000-200,000 In 2014. [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Saudi Arabia Has Given The Clinton Foundation $10-25 Million Since 1999, Part Of Which Was Contributed In 2014. [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Australia Has Given The Clinton Foundation $5-10 Million Since 2013, Part Of Which Was Contributed In 2014. [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Wall Street Journal: “Qatar’s Government Committee Preparing For The 2022 Soccer World Cup Gave Between $250,000 And $500,000 In 2014…Qatar’s Government Had Previously Donated Between $1 Million And $5 Million.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Oman Has Given The Clinton Foundation $1-5 Million, Part Of Which Was Contributed In 2014. [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Markkula Center For Applied Ethics Director: “Now That She Is Gearing Up To Run…The Same Potential Exists For Foreign Governments To Curry Favor With Her As A Potential President Of The United States.” “Kirk Hanson, director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California, said the Clintons should immediately reimpose the ban, for the same reasons it was in place while Mrs. Clinton led U.S. foreign policy. ‘Now that she is gearing up to run for president, the same potential exists for foreign governments to curry favor with her as a potential president of the United States,’ he said.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Center For Congressional And Presidential Studies Director: “Whether It Influences Her Decision Making Is Questionable, But It Is A Legitimate Thing To Focus On By Her Political Opposition.” “James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. ‘Whether it influences her decision making is questionable, but it is a legitimate thing to focus on by her political opposition.’” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TIED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DONORS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION’S ENDOWMENT FUNDRAISING UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON
Wall Street Journal: Secretary Clinton “Has Become A Prodigious Fundraiser As The Foundation Launched A $250 Million Endowment Campaign.” “Since leaving the State Department in early 2013, Mrs. Clinton officially joined the foundation, which changed its name to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and has become a prodigious fundraiser as the foundation launched a $250 million endowment campaign, officials said.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Wall Street Journal: “The Clinton Foundation Has Set A Goal Of Creating A $250 Million Endowment…[And] The Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates And Oman Donations Went To The Endowment Drive.” “The Clinton Foundation has set a goal of creating a $250 million endowment, an official said. One purpose was secure the future of the foundation’s programs without having to rely so much on the former president’s personal fundraising efforts, the official said. The Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Oman donations went to the endowment drive.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
CLINTON FOUNDATION ANNOUNCED THAT SHOULD HILLARY CLINTON DECIDE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, THE FOUNDATION WOULD FOLLOW APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FOR ACCEPTING DONATIONS FROM FOREIGN DONATIONS, JUST LIKE IT HAD HAD UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON…
Clinton Foundation: “Should Secretary Clinton Decide To Run For Office, We Will Continue To Ensure The Foundation’s Policies And Practices Regarding Support From International Partners Are Appropriate, Just As We Did When She Served As Secretary Of State.” “Like other global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals, organizations and governments from all over the world. Contributions are made because the Foundation’s programs improve the lives of millions of people around the globe. The Clinton Foundation has a record of transparency that goes above what is required of U.S. charities. This includes the voluntary disclosure of contributions on the Foundation’s website. Should Secretary Clinton decide to run for office, we will continue to ensure the Foundation’s policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as Secretary of State.” [Clinton Foundation, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal: Clinton Foundation Spokesman Claimed Donors “Go Through A Vigorous Vetting Process.” “A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation said the charity has a need to raise money for its many projects, which aim to do such things as improve education, health care and the environment around the world. He also said that donors go through a vigorous vetting process.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: “The Clinton Foundation…Has Said It Will Re-Evaluate Its Contributor Practices If Secretary Clinton Runs, Just As Was Done When She Became Secretary Of State.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
…AND DEFENDED THE FOUNDATION’S GLOBAL WORK THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DONATIONS…
Clinton Foundation Spokesman: Projects “Aim To Do Such Things As Improve Education, Health Care And The Environment Around The World.” “A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation said the charity has a need to raise money for its many projects, which aim to do such things as improve education, health care and the environment around the world. He also said that donors go through a vigorous vetting process.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/17/15]
Clinton Foundation Spokesman Craig Minassian And Hillary Clinton Spokesman Nick Merrill Sent Around Talking Points To Clinton Allies “In Hopes That You Will Join Us In Defending The Good Work The Foundation Does And Will Continue To Do.” “It’s been a little while since we’ve sent one of these, but given the attacks on the Clinton Foundation as of late, we wanted to send around some points in hopes that you will join us in defending the good work the Foundation does and will continue to do.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: “In The Last Couple Of Weeks, There Has Been Little Mention Of The Good Work The Foundation Does, And That It Is Without A Doubt A World-Class Philanthropy.” “As you’ve probably seen reading the stories in the last couple of weeks, there has been little mention of the good work the Foundation does, and that it is without a doubt a world-class philanthropy.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill Highlighted The Work Of The Clinton Foundation In The Areas Of “Haiti, Global Health, Women And Girls & No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project, Childhood Obesity, Economic Development, Climate Change, Clinton Global Initiative, Too Small To Fail, Job One.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: “The Clinton Foundation Is A Philanthropy, Period.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: Clinton Foundation Receives “Contributions From Around The World, Because They’re Doing Groundbreaking, Life-Changing Work Around The Globe.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: Clinton Foundation Contributions “Are Responsible For Millions Of People Getting Access To Live-Saving HIV/AIDS Treatment.” “These contributions are important because they are responsible for millions of people getting access to life-saving HIV/AIDs treatment, more than 40,000 farmers in Malawi, Tanzania, and Rwanda improving their incomes by more than 500 percent; 33,500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions being reduced annually across the U.S.; supporting the Clinton Global Initiative whose members have made nearly 3,100 Commitments to Action to improving more than 430 million lives around the world and so much more. The list goes on.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: “Without These Contributions… Fewer People Would Have Access To Affordable HIV/AIDS Medication; Fewer People Would Have Access To Clean Water…And Fewer Children In The US Would Have Access To Healthy Foods.” “Without these contributions, it’s clear what would have happened – fewer people would have access to affordable HIV/AIDS medication; fewer people would have access to clean water; fewer economic opportunities would be made available in developing communities in nations across Africa, Asia, and South; and fewer children in the US would have access to healthy foods.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: It Is “Important To Acknowledge That After Much Scrutiny, And When You Cast Aside Those Whose Goal It Is To Make Political Hay, That This Is A Philanthropy, Widely Recognized As A Successful One, And It Does An Enormous Amount Of Good.” “The bottom line: The ability to fund the Foundation is the ability to improve the lives of millions of people across the world. And while it’s appropriate to raise questions to ensure that money is being used as efficiently as possible to achieve its mission, it’s just as important to acknowledge that after much scrutiny, and when you cast aside those whose goal it is to make political hay, that this is a philanthropy, widely recognized as a successful one, and it does an enormous amount of good that the people who founded it and work there should be nothing but immensely proud of. Period.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: “The Work Of The Clinton Foundation Is Effective, Which Is Why It Has Bipartisan Support From Places Like News Corporation [And] Chris Ruddy Of NewsMax.” “The work of the Clinton Foundation is effective, which is why it has bipartisan support from places like News Corporation, Chris Ruddy of NewsMax, and counts among its contributors and CGI participants President George H.W. Bush, Laura Bush, Condi Rice, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina, and dozens of governors and mayors from both sides of the aisle.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: “Every Penny Of The Money Algeria Donated For Haiti Went To Help Haiti.” “Every penny of the money Algeria donated for Haiti went to help Haiti. People forget about the outpouring of support for those debased by the earthquake and the need to get money and supplies there quickly. The United Nations asked President Clinton to head Haiti relief and encouraged countries to support the effort. President Bush partnered with WJC to set up the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund in part because the Clinton Foundation had an expertise in addressing such challenges efficiently and effectively – as they previously did with the Tsunami is SE Asia.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: “When People Call For The Donations To Be Returned, They Are Dismissing The Fact That Lives Will Be Affected, Even Lost.” “People are trying to make this political forget the human toll of HIV/AIDs or earthquakes or that as governments have fewer resources around the world. That’s exactly where NGO’s need to step into the void to help improve people’s lives. When people call for the donations to be returned, they are dismissing the fact that lives will be affected, even lost.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
…AND EMPHASIZED THE UNUSUALLY HIGH LEVEL TRANSPARENCY SURROUNDING THE FOUNDATION’S DONATIONS
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: “Unlike Many Other Similar Charities, The Foundation Voluntarily Discloses All Of Its Contributors’ Names, Right On The Clinton Foundation Website.” “Let’s remember why journalists are able to dig through all these records. Because unlike many other similar charities, the Foundation voluntarily discloses all of its contributors’ names, right on the Clinton Foundation website. And it refuses to take anonymous contributions. No charity is required to do these, but the Clinton Foundation does it, on its own accord.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: Clinton Foundation “Refuses To Take Anonymous Contributions.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
Clinton Spokesman Merrill: Clinton Foundation “Counts Among Its Contributors And CGI Participants President George H.W. Bush, Laura Bush, Condi Rice, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina, And Dozens Of Governors And Mayors From Both Sides Of The Aisle.” [Nick Merrill, 3/2/15]
REPORTS THAT STATE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS DID NOT EXHAUSTIVELY VET BILL CLINTON’S PAID SPEECHES DURING SECRETARY CLINTON’S TENURE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE CLINTON FOUNDATION DONATIONS MAY HAVE PLAYED IN ORGANIZING THOSE SPEECHES
Politico: In Reviewing Bill Clinton Speeches For Potential Conflicts Of Interest, “State Department Lawyers Acted On Sparse Information About Business Proposals And Speech Requests And Were Under The Gun To Approve The Proposals Promptly.” “In hundreds of documents released to POLITICO under the Freedom of Information Act, not a single case appears where the State Department explicitly rejected a Bill Clinton speech. Instead, the records show State Department lawyers acted on sparse information about business proposals and speech requests and were under the gun to approve the proposals promptly.” [Politico, 2/25/15]
Politico: “In A 2009 Memo Greenlighting [President Clinton Speaking Engagements], A State Department Ethics Official Specifically Asked About Possible Links Between President Clinton’s Speaking Engagements And Donations To The Clinton Foundation.” “In a 2009 memo greenlighting those talks, a State Department ethics official specifically asked about possible links between President Clinton’s speaking engagements and donations to the Clinton Foundation. However, the released documents show no evidence that the question was addressed. ‘In future requests, I would suggest including a statement listing whether or not any of the proposed sponsors of a speaking event have made a donation to the Clinton Foundation and, if so, the amount and date,’ wrote Jim Thessin, then the State Department’s top ethics approver and No. 2 lawyer.” [Politico, 2/25/15]
State Department Spokesman On Bill Clinton Speaking Arrangements: “In Several Respects, Secretary Clinton’s Commitments Went Beyond The Requirements Of Applicable Laws And Regulations…We Believe Secretary Clinton Honored Fully These Undertakings.” [Politico, 2/25/15]
Clinton Foundation: “President Clinton And The Clinton Foundation Both Held Themselves To Much Higher Standards Than Existing Rules For Spouses Of Government Officials, And For The Organizations With Which They Are Affiliated.” [Politico, 2/25/15]
SOME CONSERVATIVES USED THE FOREIGN DONATIONS CONTROVERSY TO IMPLY THAT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION IS NOT A CHARITY AND QUESTION THE FOUNDATION’S CHARITABLE WORK
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “It’s Long Past Time To Drop The Fiction That The Clinton Foundation Has Ever Been A Charity.” “With the news this week that Mrs. Clinton—the would-be occupant of the White House—is landing tens of millions from foreign governments for her shop, it’s long past time to drop the fiction that the Clinton Foundation has ever been a charity. It’s a political shop.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “Bill And Hillary Have Simply Done With The Foundation What They Did With Cattle Futures And Whitewater And The Lincoln Bedroom And Johnny Chung—They’ve Exploited The System.” “With the news this week that Mrs. Clinton—the would-be occupant of the White House—is landing tens of millions from foreign governments for her shop, it’s long past time to drop the fiction that the Clinton Foundation has ever been a charity. It’s a political shop. Bill and Hillary have simply done with the foundation what they did with cattle futures and Whitewater and the Lincoln Bedroom and Johnny Chung—they’ve exploited the system.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “The Clinton Foundation Exists To Allow The Nation’s Most Powerful Couple To Use Their Not-So-Subtle Persuasion To Exact Global Tribute For A Fund That Promotes The Clintons.” “Most family charities exist to allow self-made Americans to disperse their good fortune to philanthropic causes. The Clinton Foundation exists to allow the nation’s most powerful couple to use their not-so-subtle persuasion to exact global tribute for a fund that promotes the Clintons.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “Oh Sure, The Foundation Doles Out Grants For This And That Cause…But They Don’t Rank Next To The Annual Bill Clinton Show—The Clinton Global Initiative Event.” “Oh sure, the foundation doles out grants for this and that cause. But they don’t rank next to the annual Bill Clinton show—the Clinton Global Initiative event—to which he summons heads of state and basks for a media week as post-presidential statesman. This is an organization that in 2013 spent $8.5 million in travel expenses alone, ferrying the Clintons to headliner events. Those keep Mrs. Clinton in the news, which helps when you want to be president.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: Clinton Foundation Is “A Body That Exists To Keep The Clinton Political Team Intact In Between Elections, Working For The Clintons’ Political Benefit.” “It’s a body that exists to keep the Clinton political team intact in between elections, working for the Clintons’ political benefit. Only last week it came out that Dennis Cheng, who raised money for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 bid, and then transitioned to the Clinton Foundation’s chief development officer, is now transitioning back to head up Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 fundraising operation. Mr. Cheng has scored $248 million for the foundation, and his Rolodex comes with him.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “How Much Of These Employees’ Salaries, How Much Of Mrs. Clinton’s Travel, Was Funded By The Saudis? Or The United Arab Emirates, Or Oman, Or Any Of The Other Foreign Nations[?]” “How much of these employees’ salaries, how much of Mrs. Clinton’s travel, was funded by the Saudis? Or the United Arab Emirates, or Oman, or any of the other foreign nations that The Wall Street Journal Tuesday reported have given millions to the foundation this past year? How many voters has Mrs. Clinton wooed, how many potential donors has she primed, how many influential people has she recruited for her campaign via the Clinton Foundation?” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “We Can’t Know” If The Clinton Foundation Is Lying, While “Poor Jeb Bush Has To Abide By All Those Pesky Campaign-Finance Laws That Require Him To Disclose Exact Donor Names, And Dates And Amounts.” “How much of these employees’ salaries, how much of Mrs. Clinton’s travel, was funded by the Saudis? Or the United Arab Emirates, or Oman, or any of the other foreign nations that The Wall Street Journal Tuesday reported have given millions to the foundation this past year? How many voters has Mrs. Clinton wooed, how many potential donors has she primed, how many influential people has she recruited for her campaign via the Clinton Foundation? The foundation claims none, but that’s the other Clinton stroke of brilliance in using a charity as a campaign vehicle—we can’t know. Poor Jeb Bush has to abide by all those pesky campaign-finance laws that require him to disclose exact donor names, and dates and amounts. And that also bar contributions from foreign entities.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: Ban On Foreign Donations To Clinton Foundation “Wasn’t Absolute, And It Isn’t Clear It Encompassed Nonprofits Funded By Foreign Governments, Or Covered Wealthy Foreigners, Or Foreign Corporations.” “The foundation likes to note that it adopted self-imposed limits on foreign contributions during the period when Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department. Which is nice. Then again, that ban wasn’t absolute, and it isn’t clear it encompassed nonprofits funded by foreign governments, or covered wealthy foreigners, or foreign corporations. Nothing is clear. This is the Clintons. That’s how they like it.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “This Is The Baseline Scandal Of The Clinton Foundation—It’s A Political Group That Gets To Operate Outside The Rules Imposed On Every Other Political Player.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “It’s Hard To Label Your GOP Opponent Anti-Woman When The Clinton Foundation Is Funded By Countries That Bar Women From Voting And Driving Like Saudi Arabia.” “Democrats might nonetheless consider how big a liability this is for their potential nominee. It’s hard to label your GOP opponent anti-woman when the Clinton Foundation is funded by countries that bar women from voting and driving like Saudi Arabia.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “It’s Hard To Call Your GOP Opponent A Heartless Capitalist—Out Of Tune With Middle-Class Anxieties—When You Owe Your Foundation’s Soul To Canadian Mining Magnates And Ethiopian Construction Billionaires.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel: “It’s Hard To Claim You Will Fix A Burning World When You Owe Foundation Gratitude To Countries Holding The Fossil-Fuel Blowtorches.” [Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15]
CLINTON FOUNDATION INDIVIDUAL FOREIGN DONORS
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION HAS ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF WHOM HAD TIES TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, DURING HER TENURE AS SECRETARY OF STATE
Wall Street Journal: During Secretary Clinton’s Tenure At The State Department, The Clinton Foundation Was “Raising Millions Of Dollars From Foreigners With Connections To Their Home Governments,” Some Of Whom “Have Direct Ties To Foreign Governments.” “The Clinton Foundation swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows. Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
Wall Street Journal: During Secretary Clinton’s Tenure At The State Department, “More Than A Dozen Foreign Individuals And Their Foundations And Companies Were Large Donors To The Clinton Foundation… Collectively Giving Between $34 Million And $68 Million.” “All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
Wall Street Journal: “The Foreign Donors Reached By The Wall Street Journal Said They Contributed To The [Clinton Foundation] For Charitable, Not Political Reasons.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
Wall Street Journal: The Agreement To Limit Foreign Donations Reached Between Bill Clinton And Obama “Didn’t Place Limits On Donations From Foreign Individuals Or Corporations.” “Former President Bill Clinton promised the Obama administration the foundation wouldn’t accept most foreign-government donations while his wife was secretary of state. The agreement didn’t place limits on donations from foreign individuals or corporations.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED MONEY FROM A FOUNDATION FORMED BY FORMER UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER VICTOR PINCHUK…
Wall Street Journal: “Between 2009 And 2013…Clinton Foundation Received At Least $8.6 Million From The Victor Pinchuk Foundation,” Created By Former Ukrainian Parliament Member Victor Pinchuk. “Between 2009 and 2013, including when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, according to that foundation, which is based in Kiev, Ukraine. It was created by Mr. Pinchuk, whose fortune stems from a pipe-making company. He served two terms as an elected member of the Ukrainian Parliament and is a proponent of closer ties between Ukraine and the European Union. Mr. Pinchuk and his wife—the daughter of former Ukraine President Leonid Kuchma—began donating to Clinton charities in 2006 after being introduced to Mr. Clinton by Doug Schoen, a pollster who has worked for both Clintons.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
…PINCHUCK HIMSELF HAD MADE A FIVE-YEAR $29 MILLION COMMITMENT TO THE FOUNDATION IN 2008…
Wall Street Journal: In 2008, Pinchuk “Made A Five-Year, $29 million Commitment To The Clinton Global Initiative,” Only $1.8 Million Of Which Has Been Donated, “To Fund A Program To Train Future Ukrainian Leaders And Professionals To ‘Modernize Ukraine.’” “In 2008, Mr. Pinchuk made a five-year, $29 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative, a wing of the foundation that coordinates charitable projects and funding for them but doesn’t handle the money. The pledge was to fund a program to train future Ukrainian leaders and professionals ‘to modernize Ukraine,’ according to the Clinton Foundation. Several alumni are current members of the Ukrainian Parliament. Actual donations so far amount to only $1.8 million, a Pinchuk foundation spokesman said, citing the impact of the 2008 financial crisis.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
DURING CLINTON’S TENURE AS SECRETARY OF STATE, A FORMER CLINTON POLLSTER REGISTERED AS A LOBBYIST FOR PINCHUK AND TOOK MEETINGS WITH CLINTON AIDE’S ABOUT ISSUES IN THE UKRAINE
Wall Street Journal: During Clinton’s Tenure As Secretary Of State, Clinton Pollster Schoen Registered As A Lobbyist For Pinchuk, And The Two Met With Secretary Clinton Aides, Including Melanne Verveer, Hoping To “Encourage The U.S. To Pressure Ukraine’s Then-President Viktor Yanukovych To Free His Jailed Predecessor, Yulia Tymoshenko.” “During Mrs. Clinton’s time at the State Department, Mr. Schoen, the pollster, registered as a lobbyist for Mr. Pinchuk, federal records show. Mr. Schoen said he and Mr. Pinchuk met several times with Clinton aides including Melanne Verveer, a Ukrainian-American and then a State Department ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues. The purpose, Mr. Schoen said, was to encourage the U.S. to pressure Ukraine’s then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free his jailed predecessor, Yulia Tymoshenko.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS TIED TO SAUDI ARABIA WHILE CLINTON SERVED AS SECRETARY OF STATE
Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal Donated To The Clinton Foundation In 2013 And 2014. “Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former ambassador to the U.S. and member of the Saudi royal family who has attended annual meetings of the Clinton Global Initiative, made donations in 2013 and 2014, though exact dates aren’t available. Prince Turki met Bill Clinton decades ago when both were students at Georgetown University’s foreign-service school. Prince Turki’s chief of staff didn’t respond to emails seeking comment.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
Wall Street Journal: An Ethiopian Immigrant To Saudi Arabia With Ties To Saudi Government Projects “Donated Between $5 Million And $10 Million” To The Clinton Foundation. “Another donor, Sheikh Mohammed H. Al Amoudi, an Ethiopian immigrant to Saudi Arabia, has donated between $5 million and $10 million, including while Mrs. Clinton served in the State Department. Mr. Al Amoudi has built an empire of construction, agricultural and energy companies across Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia. He also has endowed a breast-cancer institute at the government-run King Abdulaziz University and is a participant in Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah Food Security Program. His U.S. lawyer, George Salem, said his client ‘is a private Saudi citizen, and not a government official in Saudi Arabia.’ He said there was “nothing inappropriate” about the donation, which was to fight AIDS in Ethiopia.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
A GERMAN INVESTOR WHO HAS LOBBIED CHANCELLOR MERKEL’S ADMINISTRATION GAVE BETWEEN $1 MILLION AND $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, SOME OF WHICH WAS DURING MRS. CLINTON’S TENURE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Wall Street Journal: A German Investor Who Has Lobbied Chancellor Merkel’s Administration Gave Between $1 Million And $5 Million To The Clinton Foundation, “Some Of Which Came During Mrs. Clinton’s Tenure At The State Department.” “Joachim Schoss, a German investor who has met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other government officials to discuss Internet policy, has given between $1 million and $5 million, some of which came during Mrs. Clinton tenure at the State Department. A spokeswoman for Mr. Schoss said his donations were ‘purely philanthropic’ and unrelated to politics.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
A VENEZUELAN MEDIA MOGUL WHO WAS ACTIVE IN VENEZUELAN POLITICS DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DURING CLINTON’S TENURE AS SECRETARY OF STATE
Wall Street Journal: A Venezuelan Media Mogul “Who Is Active In Venezuelan Politics” Gave Between $500,000 And $1 Million To The Clinton Foundation During Clinton’s Tenure As Secretary Of State. “Venezuelan media mogul Gustavo Cisneros, who is active in Venezuelan politics and has long advocated restoring ties between the U.S. and Cuba, has given the foundation between $500,000 and $1 million, some during Mrs. Clinton’s stint at the State Department. He owns Venevisión, one of Venezuela’s largest television networks, once a staunch opponent of former President Hugo Chávez. Since Mr. Chávez’s death in 2013, Mr. Cisneros has maintained ties to the new president, Nicolás Maduro. A spokesman for Mr. Cisneros didn’t respond to a request for comment.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
AN EMBATTLED BUSINESSMAN WITH “TIES TO BAHRAIN’S STATE-OWNED ALUMINUM COMPANY” GAVE BETWEEN $1 MILLION AND $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
Wall Street Journal: An Embattled Businessman With “Ties To Bahrain’s State-Owned Aluminum Company” Gave Between $1 Million And $5 Million To The Clinton Foundation. “Victor Dahdaleh, a London businessman whose foundation contributed between $1 million and $5 million, has ties to Bahrain’s state-owned aluminum company. He was the intermediary between the state-owned Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C. and Alcoa World Alumina, which is majority owned by Alcoa Inc. Last year, he was acquitted in London on charges of bribing Bahraini officials to secure contracts for the Alcoa firm. In the U.S., the Alcoa affiliate pleaded guilty last year to corruption charges, and the Justice Department said an investigation into the matter remains open.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
Embattled Canadian Investor Victor Dahdaleh Gave $1 Million To $5 Million To The Clinton
Foundation. “Victor P. Dahdaleh, who gave $1 million to $5 million, is a Canadian investor and philanthropist involved in aluminum production. His business ties have brought allegations of fraud and bribery in a lawsuit filed by a Bahrain aluminum company. The suit seeks more than $1 billion in damages for what it alleges is Dadaleh’s involvement in questionable deals in the Middle East, and the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into the matter. Dahdaleh has vowed to vigorously contest the charges.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
THE CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM NOTABLE FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE AND AFTER SHE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE
THE CEO OF AN AMSTERDAM BASED ENERGY COMPANY DONATED AT LEAST $1 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND LATER ANNOUNCED AT THE 2009 CGI MEETING A $5 BILLION PROJECT TO DEVELOP ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY POWER GENERATION IN INDIA AND CHINA
Associated Press: Energy CEO Tulsi Tanti, Whose Company Donated At Least $1 Million To Clinton Foundation, “Announced Plans At Clinton’s Global Initiative Meeting Earlier This Year For A $5 Billion Project To Develop Environmentally Friendly Power Generation In India And China.” “Amar Singh, a donor in the $1 million to $5 million category, is an Indian politician who played host to Bill Clinton on a visit to India in 2005 and met Hillary Clinton in New York in September to discuss an India-U.S. civil nuclear agreement. Also in that category was Suzlon Energy Ltd. of Amsterdam, a leading supplier of wind turbines. Its chairman is Tulsi R. Tanti, one of India’s wealthiest executives. Tanti announced plans at Clinton’s Global Initiative meeting earlier this year for a $5 billion project to develop environmentally friendly power generation in India and China.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
INDIAN POLITICIAN AMAR SINGH, WHO HAD DONATED AT LEAST $1 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, MET WITH HILLARY CLINTON IN SEPTEMBER 2008 TO DISCUSS AN INDIA-U.S. CIVIL NUCLEAR AGREEMENT
Associated Press: Indian Politician Amar Singh, Who Donated At Least $1 Million To The Clinton Foundation, “Met Hillary Clinton In New York…To Discuss An India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement.” “The foundation’s list also underscores ties between the Clintons and India, which could complicate diplomatic perceptions of whether Hillary Clinton can be a neutral broker between India and neighboring Pakistan in a region where Obama will face an early test of his foreign policy leadership. Tensions between the two nuclear nations are high since last month’s deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Amar Singh, a donor in the $1 million to $5 million category, is an Indian politician who played host to Bill Clinton on a visit to India in 2005 and met Hillary Clinton in New York in September to discuss an India-U.S. civil nuclear agreement.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED ADDITIONAL DONATIONS FROM INDIAN BUSINESS INTERESTS PRIOR TO HER BECOMING SECRETARY OF STATE
Associated Press: “Two Other Indian Interests Gave Between $500,000 And $1 Million Each… Ajit Gulabchand, Chairman Of The Hindustan Construction Co., Gave $250,000 To $500,000.” “Two other Indian interests gave between $500,000 and $1 million each: the Confederation of Indian Industry, an industrial trade association; and Dave Katragadda, an Indian capital manager with holdings in media and entertainment, technology, health care and financial services. Ajit Gulabchand, chairman of the Hindustan Construction Co., gave $250,000 to $500,000.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
BILLIONAIRE STEEL EXECUTIVE AND MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN INVESTMENT COUNCIL IN KAZAKHSTAN LAKSHMI MITTAL GAVE $1 MILLION TO $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BEFORE CLINTON BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE
Billionaire Steel Executive And Member Of The Foreign Investment Council In Kazakhstan Lakshmi Mittal Gave $1 Million To $5 Million To The Clinton Foundation. “The No. 4 person on the Forbes billionaire list, Lakshmi Mittal, the chief executive of international steel company ArcelorMittal, gave $1 million to $5 million. Mittal is a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan, Goldman Sachs’ board of directors and the World Economic Forum’s International Business Council, according to the biography on his corporate Web site.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
SOON AFTER SECRETARY CLINTON LEFT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE CLINTON FOUNDATION “RECEIVED A LARGE DONATION FROM A CONGLOMERATE RUN BY A MEMBER OF CHINA’S NATIONAL PEOPLE’S CONGRESS”
Wall Street Journal: Soon After Secretary Clinton Left The State Department, The Clinton Foundation “Received A Large Donation From A Conglomerate Run By A Member Of China’s National People’s Congress.” “After Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013, the foundation resumed accepting donations from foreign governments. Just after she stepped down as secretary of state, it received a large donation from a conglomerate run by a member of China’s National People’s Congress.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
CLINTON FOUNDATION CORPORATE DONORS
POWERFUL AND CONTROVERSIAL CORPORATE INTERESTS BASED IN THE U.S. ALSO DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
Blackwater And Yahoo Both Donated To The Clinton Foundation. “Corporate donors included the Blackwater security firm, at risk of losing its lucrative government contract to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq, and Web company Yahoo, involved in disputes over surrendering Internet information to Chinese authorities that led to the imprisonment of dissidents there.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
Clinton Foundation: CGI Is Part Of The “Evolution Of The Conventional Philanthropic Model Over The Past Decade To A Dynamic Ecosystem That Now Promotes Creative Collaboration Across Antiquated Divides.” “This is the story the Wall Street Journal missed – the positive impact that members of CGI are having on millions of people worldwide and the evolution of the conventional philanthropic model over the past decade to a dynamic ecosystem that now promotes creative collaboration across antiquated divides. We are grateful to our members, who take on complex problems and often provide life-changing solutions.” [Clinton Foundation, 2/19/15]
Associated Press: “The Blackwater Training Center Donated $10,001 To $25,000” To The Clinton Foundation. “The Blackwater Training Center donated $10,001 to $25,000. The State Department will have to decide next year whether to renew Blackwater Worldwide’s contract to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq. A U.S. grand jury has indicted five Blackwater guards on manslaughter and weapons charges stemming from a September 2007 firefight in Baghdad’s Nisoor Square in which 17 Iraqis died.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
Associated Press: Blackwater Spokeswoman: Blackwater Made Donation To Clinton Foundation “Long Before Senator Clinton Became The Secretary Of State-Designee.” “‘Blackwater frequently supports charitable organizations and we were honored to make a donation to this one, long before Senator Clinton became the Secretary of State-designee,’ said Blackwater spokeswoman Anne E. Tyrrell.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
Associated Press: “Slim-Fast Diet Foods Tycoon S. Daniel Abraham” Gave $1 To $5 Million To The Clinton Foundation. “Slim-Fast diet foods tycoon S. Daniel Abraham, a donor of between $1 million and $5 million, has been a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which promotes Israel’s interests before the U.S. government.” [Associated Press, 1/18/09]
…AND THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DEFENDED ITS PARTNERSHIPS WITH BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC CORPORATE INTERESTS
Clinton Foundation: “Many Of The Corporations Named In The Wall Street Journal Article Have Partnered With Non-Profit Organizations, Other Corporations, And Public Sector Entities On Commitments To Action That Are Making A Huge Positive Impact.” [Clinton Foundation, 2/19/15]
Clinton Foundation: “In Fact, A Recent Survey Of All CGI Commitments Revealed That Partnerships Across Sectors Often Increase The Likelihood Of A Project Achieving Its Objectives.” [Clinton Foundation, 2/19/15]
Clinton Foundation: “CGI Members Have Formed Partnerships That Have Made Tremendous…Improving Educational Opportunities For 36.5 Million People; Expanding Access To Capital For 3.1 Million People; And Increasing Opportunities Of Various Kinds For 2.8 Million Women And Girls.” [Clinton Foundation, 2/19/15]
To read entire document click here
Comments Off on Hillary Clinton And Her Controversial Foundation’s Donors
October 5th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
EU researchers say we could be doing so much more with our windows. We could use them to collect solar energy? EU-funded researchers are developing an innovative solution to do just that. Their concept is based on thin layers of running water in the glazing, which is also designed to help maintain comfortable indoor temperatures and block out excess sunlight.
.
The Fluidglass project is developing windows that might one day leave standard glazing in the shade: in addition to providing insulation and keeping out the glare of overly bright days, they can be used as heating or cooling panels and harvest solar energy.
Credit: © Jürgen Fälchle – fotolia.com
Glazing today usually involves two or three panes of glass. These panes don’t quite touch, but instead are spaced to leave room for thin layers of gas or an enclosed vacuum, which act as insulation. “Our glass is a combination of this standard glazing with additional, fluid-filled layers – one on the outside of the window, and one on the inside,” says Fluidglass coordinator Anne-Sophie Zapf of the University of Liechtenstein’s Institute of Architecture and Planning.
Crystal-clear collectors
The fluid in these additional layers is essentially water, she explains. The outer layer deals with the rays; it is enriched with nanoparticles that soak up solar energy and filter the light. The inner layer, which can be warm or cold depending on the needs, provides heating or cooling as required to keep room temperatures pleasant.
The water composing these two layers is fed through in a continuous stream. The composition and temperature of the fluid can therefore be adapted as necessary to adjust to varying conditions.
The innovative functionalities of the outer layer rely on nanoparticles that absorb solar energy and warm up the water in the outer layer, Zapf notes. This hot water is then piped towards a storage tank, a heat exchanger or a heat pump. The energy extracted from it can, for example, be used to power the building’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system.
Replacing four different systems by one, FLUIDGLASS brings a significant cost advantage compared to existing solutions. FLUIDGLASS increases the thermal performance of the whole building resulting in energy savings potential of 50%-70% for retrofitting and 20%-30% for new low energy buildings while the comfort for the user is significantly improved at the same time. Compared to state-of-the-art solar collectors FLUIDGLASS has the elegant but neutral aesthetics of clear glass. This allows full design freedom for the architect in new built applications and enables retrofits that do not destroy the original look of an existing building.
The number of particles in the fluid varies, and so does the amount of light that the windows let in: in addition to collecting energy, the particles, which are dark, act as tiny parasols. Injecting them into the liquid produces a tint and provides shade.
The intensity of the tint and the corresponding level of shade can be tuned flexibly by adding or removing particles. “The more there are in the fluid, the darker it gets, and the more energy it can collect,” says Zapf.
Glazing in a new light
With Fluidglass glazing, what at first sight seems like a humble window might thus turn out to be a transparent solar thermal collector. The various components inside — more particularly, the water and the separators between the various layers — are barely visible, says Zapf.
This feature means that the new collectors, once they are available to architects, could be integrated into façade designs in much the same way as standard glazing, Zapf notes. In existing constructions, the panels could be fitted without major alterations to the building envelope, she adds, and it would therefore be possible to upgrade properties without disfiguring them.
According to project estimates, the thermal performance of buildings equipped with Fluidglass technology would be considerably improved. Potential energy savings of 50 to 70% have been projected for retrofits. For new constructions already designed to use less energy, the team’s calculations indicate that choosing its innovation instead of standard glazing could reduce consumption by up to 30%.
Fluidglass builds on research first initiated in 1998, says Zapf. By the time the project ends in August 2017, the team hopes to have developed the concept into a marketable product, she notes, but there is still a lot to do in the remaining 17 months.
At the moment, the researchers are putting the final touches to a demonstrator — a shipping container converted into a room with a Fluidglass window — that will enable them to test their innovation in various climates. A summer in Cyprus will place very different demands on the proposed technology than the average winter in Liechtenstein, and the Fluidglass team wants to make sure that its windows will shine whatever the weather.
Comments Off on Fluid-Glass: Solar Powered Water Water-Filled Windows Offer Heating And Cooling
October 5th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
‘We are measuring things that were not measured before,’ says geophysicist Prof. James Badro of the Paris Institute of Earth Physics, France. Prof. Badro has been working with colleagues on the DECORE project, backed by the EU’s European Research Council (ERC), to understand the composition of the earth’s core. The core is thought to be mostly iron, yet analyses of seismic waves suggest that it is not dense enough to be iron on its own.
New experiments that crush material between two diamonds to simulate the extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures found in the earth’s interior are providing answers to the age-old questions of what our planet is made of, and where its ingredients came from.
Credit: © Catmando – fotolia.com
The best way to understand the precise composition is to replicate the conditions of the core in the lab. That means temperatures of thousands of degrees and pressures of about 100 gigapascals – over a million times the pressure of our atmosphere.
To mimic such conditions, Prof. Bardo and colleagues used a diamond anvil cell – a device that crushes a sample between two diamond tips – which they heated with a laser. They began with two samples in the cell: one made of silicates, like the earth’s mantle, and one made of iron. Once the samples were crushed and heated to core-like conditions, the researchers used a combination of two techniques – ion-beam microscopy and electron microscopy – to deduce the composition of the resultant alloy.
They found that some of the silicate’s elements – vanadium, chromium, nickel and cobalt – seeped into the iron in large quantities, whereas others – silicon and oxygen – only went in a bit. The density of the resultant alloy was just right to explain the type of seismic waves received from the earth’s actual core, suggesting that the composition of the alloy was the same as the core.
Data interpretation
In some sense, diamond anvil cells offer an easy route to replicating extreme conditions. But the data is not always easy to interpret. Professor Dan Frost of the University of Bayreuth in Germany says that, in particular, the exact pressure that has been applied to the sample during the experiment is hard to pinpoint. This is important because it is the parameter that corresponds to depth beneath the earth’s surface.
Although basic physics says that pressure is the force applied per unit area, the quantity is hard to calculate because some of the force supplied by the diamond tips always ‘leaks’ back into the retaining gasket.
As part of another ERC-funded project called DEEP, Prof. Frost and others have pioneered a method to record reliable pressures inside diamond anvil cells. They measured two different parameters – the sample volume and its compressibility – which can be entered into an equation to solve for pressure.
Making these measurements required apparatus that could simultaneously perform two analytical techniques. ‘We had to put it together from bits – it was a custom job,’ said Prof. Frost, who recently won a EUR 2.5 million Leibniz Prize from the German Research Foundation for his work.
As a result, Prof. Frost and colleagues managed to draw up a table of how the volume of a sample relates to temperature and pressure. In the future, then, all researchers need to do to find the accurate pressure is to measure the sample volume.
Mantle
The work has borne fruit already. Having done studies of minerals at various pressures, corresponding to various depths, the researchers believe that the earth’s lower mantle should have a similar chemical composition to the upper mantle.
That result throws the origin of the earth into a different light. Some scientists had thought that the earth was at least partly made from meteorites which most likely originate from the asteroid belt, and since these did not have the exact composition of the upper mantle, the assumption was that the missing constituents had sunk into the lower mantle.
If the two regions of mantle have the same composition, says Prof. Frost, that theory goes out the window – it could be that the earth was made from matter elsewhere in the early solar system.
‘That’s what we’re really fascinated about, the formation of the earth,’ he adds. ‘Tracking down where all those building blocks come from.’
Researchers are running experiments that mimic the pressure in the earth’s core to determine what it is made of. Sources: Duffy, Thomas S. “Earth Science: Probing the Core’s Light Elements.” Nature 24 Nov. 2011: 480-81. Www.nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web. 21 Dec. 2015. Hata, Chisato. “World’s First Realization of Ultrahigh Pressure and Ultrahigh Temperature at the Earth’s Center – Finally Reaching the Earth’s Core.” Spring 8, n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2015. Hogan, Marianne. “The Earth’s Inside.” The University of Colorado, n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2015.
Comments Off on What’s At The Center Of The Earth? It’s Not What They Thought
October 3rd, 2016
By Alina Dieste.
Bogota, Colombia- Colombians hit their government with a shock defeat Sunday when they voted by a razor-thin majority to reject a historic peace accord with communist FARC rebels. Voters resentful of the blood shed by the FARC narrowly defied the government’s bid to put the 52-year conflict behind them, reversing the trend of earlier opinion polls.
The result threw Colombia’s future into uncertainty. The sides spent four years negotiating the deal and agreed it must be ratified in a referendum — but said there was no Plan B. The ‘No’ camp won by about 54,000 votes which translated into a lead of less than half a percentage point, electoral authorities said. President Juan Manuel Santos admitted defeat in the vote but vowed: “I will not give in, and I will continue to seek peace to the last day of my term.”
FARC chief Rodrigo Londono, alias Timoleon “Timochenko” Jimenez, vowed his side too was committed to continuing peace efforts. He said its ceasefire remained in force. “The FARC deeply deplores that the destructive power of those who sow hatred and resentment has influenced the Colombian people’s opinion,” he said in a speech in Havana, Cuba, where the accord was negotiated.
“The people of Colombia who dream of peace can count on us. Peace will triumph.” Deadly conflict Supporters of the accord had expected it to effectively end what is seen as the last major armed conflict in the Western hemisphere. But Sunday evening’s result was a dramatic defeat for Santos and the accord he signed with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
Commentators compared the drama of the result to that of June’s surprise “Brexit” vote for Britain to leave the European Union. Colombians voted 50.21 percent to 49.78 percent against the accord, according to results published online with more than 99.9 percent of votes counted. Turnout was low at just over 37 percent.
Authorities earlier said heavy rain caused some disruption to voting as Hurricane Matthew passed over the Caribbean. – Hatred of the FARC – Some victims of the FARC had said publicly that they backed the accord. But forecasts apparently miscalculated Colombians’ desire to punish the FARC. Opponents of the deal resented the concessions offered to the armed group.
They included an amnesty for some FARC members, though not for the worst crimes such as massacres, torture and rape. “It is absurd to reward those criminals, drug traffickers and killers who have made the country a disaster for the past 50 years,” said No voter Jose Gomez, a retiree of 70. Monica Gonzalez, 36, celebrated the result in northern Bogota on Sunday night. She said the FARC killed her grandmother in 2011 and kidnapped some of her other relatives.
“I agree with second chances, but not with impunity,” she said. ‘Political crisis’ The leader of the ‘No’ campaign, former president Alvaro Uribe, called for a “national pact” to work for peace. But it was unclear how peace efforts might move forward now.
“Hatred of the FARC won the vote,” said Jorge Restrepo, director of conflict analysis center CERAC. “We have been cast into a deep political crisis with very negative economic consequences.”
Comments Off on Colombian Reject Peace Deal Shocking Government
October 3rd, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
Ancient artifacts found at an archeological site in Argentina suggest that humans occupied South America earlier than previously thought.
Approximately 13,000 years ago, a prehistoric group of hunter-gathers known as the Clovis people lived in Northern America. Previous research suggests that the Clovis culture was one of the earliest cultures in the Americas. However, more recent research from the Pampas region of Argentina supports the hypothesis that early Homo sapiens arrived in the Americas earlier than the Clovis hunters did.
The evidence for earlier human arrival in the Americas comes from a rich archaeological site in southeastern South America called Arroyo Seco 2. A group of scientists led by Gustavo Politis from CONICET and the Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires present the research in a new PLOS ONE study.
Credit: Politis et al (2016)At Arroyo Seco 2, the researchers excavated ancient tools, bone remains from a variety of extinct species, and broken animal bones containing fractures caused by human tools. They used radiocarbon dating to determine the age of the mammal bones and analyzed the specimens under a microscope.
The analysis revealed the presence of limb bones from extinct mammals at the site, which may indicate human activities of transporting and depositing animal carcasses for consumption at a temporary camp. The bones of some mammal species were concentrated in a specific part of the site, which could indicate designated areas for butchering activities. Microscopic examination also revealed that some bones contained fractures most likely caused by stone tools. The remains were dated between 14,064 and 13,068 years ago, and the authors hypothesize that Arroyo Seco 2 may have been occupied by humans during that time.
This timeline, along with evidence from other South American sites, indicates that humans may have arrived in southern South America prior to the Clovis people inhabiting the Americas, but after the onset of the Last Glacial Maximum, the last glacial period, which took place 19,000 to 20,000 years ago.
While the characteristics of some of these archaeological materials could be explained without human intervention, the combination of evidence strongly suggests human involvement. Humans’ arrival in southern South America 14,000 years ago may represent the last step in the expansion of Homo sapiens throughout the world and the final continental colonization.
Comments Off on New Finds Shift The Timeline Back For Human Arrival In The Americas
October 3rd, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine provides a comprehensive assessment of economic and demographic trends of U.S. immigration over the past 20 years, its impact on the labor market and wages of native-born workers, and its fiscal impact at the national, state, and local levels.
Among the report’s key findings and conclusions:
When measured over a period of 10 years or more, the impact of immigration on the wages of native-born workers overall is very small. To the extent that negative impacts occur, they are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born workers who have not completed high school—who are often the closest substitutes for immigrant workers with low skills.
There is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers. As with wage impacts, there is some evidence that recent immigrants reduce the employment rate of prior immigrants. In addition, recent research finds that immigration reduces the number of hours worked by native teens (but not their employment levels).
Some evidence on inflow of skilled immigrants suggests that there may be positive wage effects for some subgroups of native-born workers, and other benefits to the economy more broadly.
Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.
Credit: This figure replicates Martin (2013), Figure 2, p. 5, directly from the data series maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, 2014. These data can be downloaded directly from https://www.dhs.gov/publication/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2013-lawful-permanent-residents
In terms of fiscal impacts, first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments, mainly at the state and local levels, than are the native-born, in large part due to the costs of educating their children. However, as adults, the children of immigrants (the second generation) are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing more in taxes than either their parents or the rest of the native-born population.
Over the long term, the impacts of immigrants on government budgets are generally positive at the federal level but remain negative at the state and local level — but these generalizations are subject to a number of important assumptions. Immigration’s fiscal effects vary tremendously across states.
“The panel’s comprehensive examination revealed many important benefits of immigration — including on economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship — with little to no negative effects on the overall wages or employment of native-born workers in the long term,” said Francine D. Blau, Frances Perkins Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations and professor of economics at Cornell University, and chair of the panel that conducted the study and wrote the report. “Where negative wage impacts have been detected, native-born high school dropouts and prior immigrants are most likely to be affected. The fiscal picture is more mixed, with negative effects especially evident at the state level when the costs of educating the children of immigrants are included, but these children of immigrants, on average, go on to be the most positive fiscal contributors in the population. We hope our detailed analysis of the evidence will be of use to policymakers and the public as they consider this issue.”
Impacts on Employment, Wages, and the Economy
The panel examined the available evidence on how immigration affects the U.S. labor market and economy and came to the following conclusions.
Effects on wages. When measured over a period of 10 years or more, the impact of immigration on the wages of native workers overall is very small. To the extent that negative wage effects are found, prior immigrants – who are often the closest substitutes for new immigrants – are most likely to experience them, followed by native-born high-school dropouts, who share job qualifications similar to the large share of low-skilled workers among immigrants to the United States.
Effects on employment levels. There is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers. Recent research finds that immigration reduces the number of hours worked by native-born teens (but not their employment rate). As with wage impacts, there is some evidence that low-skilled immigrants reduce the employment rate of prior immigrants – again suggesting a higher degree of substitutability between new and prior immigrants than between new immigrants and natives.
Effects of high-skilled immigrants. Until recently, the impact of high-skilled immigrants on native wages and employment received less attention than that of their low-skilled counterparts; but, as the number of high-skilled immigrant workers has grown, so too has interest in studying their role in the economy. Several studies have found a positive impact of skilled immigration on the wages and employment of both college- and non-college-educated natives. Such findings are consistent with the view that skilled immigrants are often complementary to native-born workers; that spillovers of wage-enhancing knowledge and skills occur as a result of interactions among workers; and that skilled immigrants innovate sufficiently to raise overall productivity.
The role of immigrants in consumer demand. Immigrants’ contributions to the labor force reduce the prices of some goods and services, which benefits consumers in a range of sectors, including child care, food preparation, house cleaning and repair, and construction. Moreover, new arrivals and their descendants are a source of demand in key sectors such as housing, which benefits residential real estate markets.
Impacts on economic growth. Immigration is integral to the nation’s economic growth. The inflow of labor supply has helped the United States avoid the problems facing other economies that have stagnated as a result of unfavorable demographics, particularly the effects of an aging workforce and reduced consumption by older residents. In addition, the infusion of human capital by high-skilled immigrants has boosted the nation’s capacity for innovation, entrepreneurship, and technological change. Research suggests, for example, that immigrants raise patenting per capita, which ultimately contributes to productivity growth. The prospects for long-run economic growth in the United States would be considerably dimmed without the contributions of high-skilled immigrants.
Impacts on Federal, State, and Local Budgets
Beyond wage and employment considerations, policymakers and the general public are interested in the impact that immigration has on public finances and the sustainability of government programs. All parts of the U.S. population contribute to government finances by paying taxes and add to expenditures by consuming public services – but the levels differ. The panel conducted several analyses estimating the fiscal contributions and costs of first-generation immigrants, the second generation (native-born individuals with at least one parent who is an immigrant), and the rest of the native-born U.S. population (referred to in the report as the third-plus generation).
Over the period 1994-2013, the net fiscal contribution (federal, state, and local combined) of first-generation immigrants was, on average, consistently less favorable than that of native-born generations. Annual cross-sectional data reveal that, compared with the native-born, first-generation immigrants contributed less in taxes during working ages because they were, on average, less educated and earned less. However, this pattern reverses at around age 60, when the native-born (except for the children of immigrants) were consistently more expensive to government on a per-capita basis because of their greater use of social security benefits.
During the same 1994-2013 time period, second-generation adults — the children of immigrants — had, on average, a more favorable net fiscal impact for all government levels combined than either first-generation immigrants or the rest of the native-born population. Reflecting their slightly higher educational achievement, as well as their higher wages and salaries, the second generation contributed more in taxes on a per capita basis during working ages than did their parents or other native-born Americans.
Results from these cross-sectional analyses are significantly influenced by the age structures (distribution across age categories) of the different generational groups, which in turn influence the percentage of each group in schooling, in the workforce, and in retirement. These age structures vary significantly from one historical period to another. Results are also driven to a large extent by the assumptions underlying each analysis, especially about the allocation of government expenditures on public goods such as national defense. For example, for scenarios in which military spending is assumed not to increase with additional immigrants, and in which a cost of zero is assigned to them for this benefit, the net fiscal impact of individuals in the first-generation group becomes more positive than that of individuals in the two native-born groups.
In addition to conducting historical analyses, the panel also modeled the impact that adding an immigrant (with characteristics based on an average of recent immigrants) to the U.S. population would have on future public budgets, in order to estimate the future fiscal impacts of immigration. Projected over a future time horizon of 75 years, this analysis found that the fiscal impacts of immigrants are generally positive at the federal level and generally negative at the state and local level. State and local governments bear the burden of providing education benefits to children, including those in immigrant households, but their methods of taxation recoup relatively little of the later contributions from the resulting educated taxpayers. Federal benefits, in contrast, are largely provided to the elderly, so the relative youthfulness of arriving immigrants, who are often working and paying taxes, means that they tend to be beneficial to federal finances.
The panel’s analysis of state- and local-level data indicates that the net impact of immigration on fiscal balance sheets varies tremendously across jurisdictions. Consistent with findings in the national level analyses, first- generation adults (and their dependents) tend to be more costly to state and local governments on a per capita basis than adults (and their dependents) in the second generation or in other native-born generations. In general, second-generation adults contribute the most of any generation to the bottom line of state balance sheets.
The analysis also reveals that an immigrant and a native-born person with similar characteristics will likely have about the same fiscal impact. Persons with higher levels of education contribute more positively to government finances, regardless of whether they are an immigrant or are native born.
Trends in Immigration
More than 40 million people living in the United States were born in other countries, and almost an equal number have at least one foreign-born parent. Together, immigrants and their children comprise almost one in four Americans. The panel examined key developments and trends in immigration over the past two decades.
Education. Educational attainment has increased steadily over the past few decades for both recent immigrants and the native-born, although the former still have about 0.8 years less of schooling on average than do the latter. The foreign-born are overrepresented in both the population with less than a high school education and the population with more than a four-year college education, particularly among computer, science, and engineering workers with advanced degrees.
Labor force. The portion of the labor force that is foreign-born has risen from about 11 percent to just over 16 percent in the last 20 years. Immigrants and their children will account for the vast majority of current and future workforce growth – which, at less than 1 percent annually, is slow by historical standards.
Legal immigration. Annual flows of lawful permanent residents into the U.S. have increased in recent decades. During the 1980s, just under 600,000 immigrants were admitted legally (received green cards) each year. After the 1990 Immigration Act took effect, legal admissions increased to just under 800,000 per year. Since 2001, legal admissions have averaged just over 1 million per year.
Unauthorized immigration. The estimated number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States roughly doubled from about 5.7 million in 1995 to about 11.1 million in 2014. The number of unauthorized immigrants arriving in the U.S. reached more than 800,000 annually by the first five years of the 21st century but decreased dramatically after 2007; partly as a result, the unauthorized immigrant population shrank by about 1 million over the next two years. Since 2009, the unauthorized immigrant population has remained stable, with about 300,000 to 400,000 new unauthorized immigrants arriving each year and about the same number leaving.
The study was sponsored by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, with additional support from the National Academy of Sciences Independent Fund, the National Academy of Engineering Independent Fund, and the National Academy of Medicine Independent Fund. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. The Academies operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org. A committee roster follows.
Comments Off on NAS Report Assesses Immigration Trends And Economic Impact Past 20 Years
September 24th, 2016
Insurance fraud seems like it might be an easy thing to do. Insurance companies are often so huge, one wonders how they might not even notice a few mistakes in your favor. But the fact is that insurance companieshave people who make it their full time job to sniff out fraud, ensuring that they keep a tight bottom line. And while they may not catch every tiny little fudge, you can be sure they are on the hunt for major offenders such as the ones on this list. Check out these famous insurance fraud cases that surely carried a huge bounty.
- HCA/Medicare: In 2000 and 2002, HCA pleaded guilty to 14 felonies, including fraudulently billing Medicare as well as other programs. HCA had inflated the seriousness of diagnoses, filed false cost reports, and paid kickbacks to doctors to refer patients. HCA had to pay the US government $631 million plus interest, as well as $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, on top of $250 million already paid to Medicare for outstanding expense claims. It was the largest fraud settlement in US history, with law suits reaching $2 billion in total.
- John Darwin’s Death: John Darwin faked his death in a canoeing accident, turning up five years later. He’d been secretly living in his house and the house next door, while his wife claimed the money on his life insurance. They were both sentenced to six years in prison, but released on probation. BBC created a TV drama about their story called Canoe Man.
- The horse murders scandal: Between the mid 1970s and mid 1990s many expensive horses were involved in insurance fraud. These expensive horses, often show jumpers, were placed on insurance for accident or death, and killed for the insurance money. The number of horses killed in this manner is believed to be at least 50 and possibly as high as 100. It was the biggest scandal in equestrian sports, resulting in the death of a whistleblower, Helen Brach, in addition to the horses.
- John Mango’s fire: A Toronto businessman, John Mango hired someone to set fire to his business for the insurance money. Things got quite out of hand, killing one person during the fire and forcing many families to leave the area until the fire could be put out. Mango was charged with second degree murder on top of his fraud charges.
- Swoop and squat: In the 90s, car insurance fraud ran rampant. Cars would purposely get into accidents with innocent people on the road, hoping to score insurance money, and often, they did. These accidents frequently injured drivers, and some were even fatal. These accidents usually earned the orchestrators about $20,000 each.
- Michael Jackson’s prescriptions: Lloyds of London has recently filed suit to invalidate an insurance policy taken out by Michael Jackson. The policy covered his “This Is It” tour in the event that it was not successful. The payout was to be $17.5 million, but Lloyds argues that it is invalid because Michael Jackson did not disclose prescription drugs on his application. As Jackson died from an overdose, Lloyds is claiming deception.
- The Titanic: Everyone knows the story of the Titanic, but not everyone realizes that some believe it’s part of a conspiracy to pull off a huge insurance fraud. The Olympic, Titanic’s sister ship, was damaged and rendered useless during one of its voyages-and some believe that the Titanic as it sunk was actually the Olympic. Conspiracy theorists note several inconsistencies in the performance and construction of the “Titanic” that indicate the Titanic sinking was a case of swapped ships.
- Cooperman art theft hoax: Would you steal your own art for money? LA ophthalmologist Steven Cooperman did. He arranged for a Picasso and a Monet to be stolen from his home in an attempt to collect $17.5 million in insurance money. He was convicted in July 1999.
- Martin Frankel: Martin Frankel’s insurance fraud is just one in a long list of financial crimes. He was sentenced to 200 months in prison due to over $200 million in losses to insurance companies. He eventually plead guilty to 24 federal counts of racketeering and conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud.
- Bristol-Myers Squibb kickbacks: Regulators in California have gone after Bristol-Myers Squibb for insurance fraud, among other offenses. The lawsuit accuses Bristol-Myers of making payments to high-prescribing physicians, targeting and profiting on the private insurance industry. It is the largest health insurance fraud to be pursued by a California state agency. Additionally, in 2007, the pharmaceutical company paid $515 million to settle with federal and state governments against allegations of kickbacks to defraud Medicare and Medicaid.
- Dr. Gupta’s mystery procedures: There’s a nationwide manhunt launched by the FBI looking for Dr. Gautam Gupta. The complaint against him alleges that he submitted claims to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Medicaid for unnecessary procedures, and even ones that were never performed. The fraudulent insurance claims from Dr. Gupta reached nearly $25 million.
- Millionaire insurance fraud: Charles Ingram was first made famous as a fraud when he cheated on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?, using coded coughs to win. But his deception was further exposed when he was convicted of insurance fraud as well. He placed a suspicious £30,000 burglary claim, and was found to be dishonest, ultimately winning two guilty charges for his fraud.
- TAP Pharmaceuticals fraud: The Department of Justice got involved with this pharmaceutical insurance fraud case. TAP Pharmaceuticals engaged in fraudulent drug pricing and marketing conduct, as well as filing fraudulent claims with Medicare and Medicaid. They agreed to pay $559 million to the government for those claims, as part of an $875 million settlement for all criminal charges and civil liabilities.
- I get knocked down, but I get up again…and knocked down again 48 more times: With 49 cases, Isabel Parker earned her title as the queen of the slip and fall scam. During her career, she received claims totaling $500,000.
- Torching the Malibu: What do you do if you don’t want to pay on your car anymore? If you’re teacher Tramesha Lashon Fox, you get your students to set your car on fire in exchange for passing grades. She’d hoped to get insurance money, but instead lost her job and served 90 days in jail.
Comments Off on 15 Most Famous Cases Of Insurance Fraud
September 24th, 2016
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology (MIT) researchers and their colleagues are designing an imaging system that can read closed books.
In the latest issue of Nature Communications, the researchers describe a prototype of the system, which they tested on a stack of papers, each with one letter printed on it. The system was able to correctly identify the letters on the top nine sheets.
“The Metropolitan Museum in New York showed a lot of interest in this, because they want to, for example, look into some antique books that they don’t even want to touch,” says Barmak Heshmat, a research scientist at the MIT Media Lab and corresponding author on the new paper. He adds that the system could be used to analyze any materials organized in thin layers, such as coatings on machine parts or pharmaceuticals.
MIT researchers and their colleagues are designing an imaging system that can read closed books.
Courtesy of Barmak Heshmat
Heshmat is joined on the paper by Ramesh Raskar, the NEC Career Development Associate Professor of Media Arts and Sciences; Albert Redo Sanchez, a research specialist in the Camera Culture group at the Media Lab; two of the group’s other members; and by Justin Romberg and Alireza Aghasi of Georgia Tech.
The MIT researchers developed the algorithms that acquire images from individual sheets in stacks of paper, and the Georgia Tech researchers developed the algorithm that interprets the often distorted or incomplete images as individual letters. “It’s actually kind of scary,” Heshmat says of the letter-interpretation algorithm. “A lot of websites have these letter certifications [captchas] to make sure you’re not a robot, and this algorithm can get through a lot of them.”
The system uses terahertz radiation, the band of electromagnetic radiation between microwaves and infrared light, which has several advantages over other types of waves that can penetrate surfaces, such as X-rays or sound waves. Terahertz radiation has been widely researched for use in security screening, because different chemicals absorb different frequencies of terahertz radiation to different degrees, yielding a distinctive frequency signature for each. By the same token, terahertz frequency profiles can distinguish between ink and blank paper, in a way that X-rays can’t.
Terahertz radiation can also be emitted in such short bursts that the distance it has traveled can be gauged from the difference between its emission time and the time at which reflected radiation returns to a sensor. That gives it much better depth resolution than ultrasound.
The system exploits the fact that trapped between the pages of a book are tiny air pockets only about 20 micrometers deep. The difference in refractive index — the degree to which they bend light — between the air and the paper means that the boundary between the two will reflect terahertz radiation back to a detector.
In the researchers’ setup, a standard terahertz camera emits ultrashort bursts of radiation, and the camera’s built-in sensor detects their reflections. From the reflections’ time of arrival, the MIT researchers’ algorithm can gauge the distance to the individual pages of the book.
While most of the radiation is either absorbed or reflected by the book, some of it bounces around between pages before returning to the sensor, producing a spurious signal. The sensor’s electronics also produce a background hum. One of the tasks of the MIT researchers’ algorithm is to filter out all this “noise.”
The information about the pages’ distance helps: It allows the algorithm to hone in on just the terahertz signals whose arrival times suggest that they are true reflections. Then, it relies on two different measures of the reflections’ energy and assumptions about both the energy profiles of true reflections and the statistics of noise to extract information about the chemical properties of the reflecting surfaces.
At the moment, the algorithm can correctly deduce the distance from the camera to the top 20 pages in a stack, but past a depth of nine pages, the energy of the reflected signal is so low that the differences between frequency signatures are swamped by noise. Terahertz imaging is still a relatively young technology, however, and researchers are constantly working to improve both the accuracy of detectors and the power of the radiation sources, so deeper penetration should be possible.
Comments Off on Prototype System Can Read Closed Books
September 24th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
Your eyes begin to open after a good night of sleep, but something feels weird. You try to rub the tiredness out of your face but can’t lift your arms. In a panic you try to take a deep breath but can’t draw air. You can’t sit up, and you may even see a shadow in the corner of the room. This isn’t a nightmare or a medical emergency—you likely just had a case of sleep paralysis.
What is sleep paralysis?
Sleep paralysis is an episode where your brain tells the body that you’re still in the rapid eye movement (REM) stage of sleep in which the limbs are temporarily paralyzed (to prevent physically acting out dreams), heart rate and blood pressure rise, and breathing becomes more irregular and shallow. This is the stage of sleep where your most vivid dreams occur, which can explain why some people may hallucinate during sleep paralysis.
Credit: Baona
“Sleep paralysis is a frightening event,” said Steven Bender, DDS, director of the Center for Facial Pain and Sleep Medicine and clinical assistant professor with the Texas A&M College of Dentistry. “Someone is awake, but they have no control of their body and might possibly even see things that aren’t there because their brain still thinks it’s in REM sleep.”
Sleep paralysis differs from dreaming and night terrors mainly due to the fact that the brain is awake, even if it hasn’t told the body just yet.
“When people have a nightmare, they sleep, have a dream and then wake up,” Bender said. “When they’re experiencing sleep paralysis, they may have a dream when they are already awake.”
What can occur during sleep paralysis?
Spells of sleep paralysis last only a few moments—at most a couple minutes—and typically only occur when falling asleep or waking up. In addition to muscle atonia, someone experiencing sleep paralysis can have the experience of dreaming with the added involvement of being conscious and aware of their surroundings.
“People who experience sleep paralysis can have vivid hallucinations because they are dreaming,” Bender said. “People have felt like they’re levitating or that someone is in their bedroom or a variety of other strange experiences—like alien abductions.”
REM sleep occurs in cycles of about 90 to 120 minutes throughout the night, and it accounts for up to a quarter of total sleep time in adults—particularly towards the latter end of sleep. Because rapid and irregular breathing occurs in REM sleep, people who experience sleep paralysis may struggle to breathe properly, which can feel like suffocation.
Who is at risk for sleep paralysis?
This phenomenon may happen more often than you’d think, as seven to eight percent of the population may experience sleep paralysis. It is more frequent in African-Americans, young adults and females. Those who have bad sleep habits, such as napping during the day or being on their phone or laptop in bed, can potentially increase their risk for sleep paralysis.
People who have narcolepsy, a chronic sleep disorder that causes overwhelming drowsiness, or other sleep disorders have an increased risk for sleep paralysis. Other mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety, have also been linked with greater chances of sleep paralysis.
Will this be a regular occurrence?
The diagnosis for sleep paralysis is fairly simple and is not typically a reoccurring problem for those who aren’t diagnosed with conditions affecting sleep. The main way to avoid the phenomenon is to improve sleep hygiene. These good sleep habits include sleeping and waking at regular times, avoiding watching television or playing on a laptop or cell phone in bed, avoiding naps during the day and avoiding stimulants close to bed time. Although it is a strange and frightening experience, it’s not something that should be a cause for concern.
“Sleep paralysis isn’t dangerous or harmful,” Bender said. “If it becomes a regular problem, then consult your primary health care provider, and they can help you manage it.”
Comments Off on Sleep Paralysis: Fully Awake And Unable To Move
September 19th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
The Grolier Codex, an ancient document that is among the rarest books in the world, has been regarded with skepticism since it was reportedly unearthed by looters from a cave in Chiapas, Mexico, in the 1960s.
But a meticulous new study of the codex has yielded a startling conclusion: The codex is both genuine and likely the most ancient of all surviving manuscripts from ancient America.
The Grolier Codex is a screenfold book fashioned from bark paper, coated with
stucco on both sides and painted on one side. Eleven pages survive of a twenty-page book. The greatest height of any of the surviving page fragments is 18 centimeters (7.1 in) and the average page width is 12.5 centimeters (4.9 in).
A detail of an image from page 4 of the Grolier Codex with red underpainting visible.
Photo: Justin Kerr
Stephen Houston, the Dupee Family Professor of Social Science and co-director of the Program in Early Cultures at Brown University, worked with Michael Coe, professor emeritus of archeology and anthropology at Harvard and leader of the research team, along with Mary Miller of Yale and Karl Taube of the University of California-Riverside. They reviewed “all known research on the manuscript,” analyzing it “without regard to the politics, academic and otherwise, that have enveloped the Grolier,” the team wrote in its study “The Fourth Maya Codex.”
The paper, published in the journal Maya Archaeology, fills a special section of the publication and includes a lavish facsimile of the codex.
Maya Grolier Codex, Page 6
The study, Houston said, “is a confirmation that the manuscript, counter to some claims, is quite real. The manuscript was sitting unremarked in a basement of the National Museum in Mexico City, and its history is cloaked in great drama. It was found in a cave in Mexico, and a wealthy Mexican collector, Josué Sáenz, had sent it abroad before its eventual return to the Mexican authorities.”
Controversial from the outset
For years, academics and specialists have argued about the legitimacy of the Grolier Codex, a legacy the authors trace in the paper. Some asserted that it must have been a forgery, speculating that modern forgers had enough knowledge of Maya writing and materials to create a fake codex at the time the Grolier came to light.
The codex was reportedly found in the cave with a cache of six other items, including a small wooden mask and a sacrificial knife with a handle shaped like a clenched fist, the authors write. They add that although all the objects found with the codex have been proven authentic, the fact that looters, rather than archeologists, found the artifacts made specialists in the field reluctant to accept that the document was genuine.
Some ridiculed as fantastical Sáenz’s account of being contacted about the codex by two looters who took him—in an airplane whose compass was hidden from view by a cloth—to a remote airstrip near Tortuguero, Mexico, to show him their discovery.
And there were questions, the authors note, about Sáenz’s actions once he possessed the codex. Why did he ship it to the United States, where it was displayed in the spring of 1971 at New York City’s Grolier Club, the private club and society of bibliophiles that gives the codex its name, rather than keep it in Mexico? As for the manuscript itself, it differed from authenticated codices in several marked ways, including its relative lack of hieroglyphic text and the prominence of its illustrations.
“It became a kind of dogma that this was a fake,” Houston continued. “We decided to return and look at it very carefully, to check criticisms one at a time. Now we are issuing a definitive facsimile of the book. There can’t be the slightest doubt that the Grolier is genuine.”
Digging in
Houston and his co-authors analyzed the origins of the manuscript, the nature of its style and iconography, the nature and meaning of its Venus tables, scientific data — including carbon dating — of the manuscript, and the craftsmanship of the codex, from the way the paper was made to the known practices of Maya painters.
Over the course of a 50-page analysis, the authors take up the questions and criticisms leveled by scholars over the last 45 years and describes how the Grolier Codex differs from the three other known ancient Maya manuscripts but nonetheless joins their ranks.
Those codices, the Dresden, Madrid and Paris, all named for the cities in which they are now housed, were regarded from the start as genuine, the authors note. All of the codices have calendrical and astronomical elements that track the passage of time via heavenly bodies, assist priests with divination and inform ritualistic practice as well as decisions about such things as when to wage war.
Variations among the codices, as well as the assumption that because manuscripts such as the Dresden were authenticated first made them canonical, fed scholars’ doubts about the Grolier, according to the study. The Grolier, however, was dated by radiocarbon and predates those codices, according to the authors.
The captive on page 9 of the Grolier Codex has a sense of perspective that is alien to Mesoamerican art
‘
The Grolier’s composition, from its 13th-century amatl paper, to the thin red sketch lines underlying the paintings and the Maya blue pigments used in them, are fully persuasive, the authors assert. Houston and his coauthors outline what a 20th century forger would have had to know or guess to create the Grolier, and the list is prohibitive: he or she would have to intuit the existence of and then perfectly render deities that had not been discovered in 1964, when any modern forgery would have to have been completed; correctly guess how to create Maya blue, which was not synthesized in a laboratory until Mexican conservation scientists did so in the 1980s; and have a wealth and range of resources at their fingertips that would, in some cases, require knowledge unavailable until recently.
Use and appearance of the Grolier Codex
The Grolier Codex is a fragment, consisting of 10 painted pages decorated with ritual Maya iconography and a calendar that charts the movement of the planet Venus. Mesoamerican peoples, Houston said, linked the perceived cycles of Venus to particular gods and believed that time was associated with deities.
The Venus calendars counted the number of days that lapsed between one heliacal rising of Venus and the next, or days when Venus, the morning star, appeared in the sky before the sun rose. This was important, the authors note, because measuring the planet’s cycles could help Maya people create ritual cycles based on astronomical phenomena.
The gods depicted in the codex are described by Houston and his colleagues as “workaday gods, deities who must be invoked for the simplest of life’s needs: sun, death, K’awiil — a lordly patron and personified lightning — even as they carry out the demands of the ‘star’ we call Venus. Dresden and Madrid both elucidate a wide range of Maya gods, but in Grolier, all is stripped down to fundamentals.”
The codex is also, according to the paper’s authors, not a markedly beautiful book. “In my view, it isn’t a high-end production,” Houston said, “not one that would be used in the most literate royal court. The book is more closely focused on images and the meanings they convey.”
The Grolier Codex, the team argues, is also a “predetermined rather than observational” guide, meaning it declares what “should occur rather than what could be seen through the variable cloud cover of eastern Mesoamerica. With its span of 104 years, the Grolier would have been usable for at least three generations of calendar priest or day-keeper,” the authors write.
That places the Grolier in a different tradition than the Dresden Codex, which is known for its elaborate notations and calculations, and makes the Grolier suitable for a particular kind of readership, one of moderately high literacy. It may also have served an ethnically and linguistically mixed group, in part Maya, in part linked to the Toltec civilization centered on the ancient city of Tula in Central Mexico.
Beyond its useful life as a calendar, the Grolier Codex “retained its value as a sacred work, a desirable target for Spanish inquisitors intent on destroying such manuscripts,” the authors wrote in the paper.
Created around the time when both Chichen Itza in Yucatán and Tula fell into decline, the codex was created by a scribe working in “difficult times,” wrote Houston and his co-authors. Despite his circumstances, the scribe “expressed aspects of weaponry with roots in the pre-classic era, simplified and captured Toltec elements that would be deployed by later artists of Oaxaca and Central Mexico” and did so in such a manner that “not a single detail fails to ring true.”
“A reasoned weighing of evidence leaves only one possible conclusion: four intact Mayan codices survive from the Precolumbian period, and one of them,” Houston and his colleagues wrote, “is the Grolier.”
Comments Off on Controversial Maya Codex Proves Genuine
September 14th, 2016
The Daily Journalist.
The majestic auroras have captivated humans for thousands of years, but their nature – the fact that the lights are electromagnetic and respond to solar activity – was only realized in the last 150 years. Thanks to coordinated multi-satellite observations and a worldwide network of magnetic sensors and cameras, close study of auroras has become possible over recent decades. Yet, auroras continue to mystify, dancing far above the ground to some, thus far, undetected rhythm.
Using data from NASA’s Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms, or THEMIS, scientists have observed Earth’s vibrating magnetic field in relation to the northern lights dancing in the night sky over Canada. THEMIS is a five-spacecraft mission dedicated to understanding the processes behind auroras, which erupt across the sky in response to changes in Earth’s magnetic environment, called the magnetosphere.
These aurora images were taken in 2013 from the ground looking up with a network of all-sky cameras spread across Canada, studying auroras in collaboration with THEMIS. Taking images of aurora from the ground in conjunction with satellite data taken from above the atmosphere gives scientists a more comprehensive picture of how and why auroras form.
Credits: NASA/CSA/University of California, Berkeley/University of Calgary/NSF
These new observations allowed scientists to directly link specific intense disturbances in the magnetosphere to the magnetic response on the ground. A paper on these findings was published in
Nature Physics on Sept. 12, 2016.
“We’ve made similar observations before, but only in one place at a time – on the ground or in space,” said David Sibeck, THEMIS project scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who did not participate in the study. “When you have the measurements in both places, you can relate the two things together.”
Understanding how and why auroras occur helps us learn more about the complex space environment around our planet. Radiation and energy in near-Earth space can have a variety of effects on our satellites – from disrupting their electronics to increasing frictional drag and interrupting communication or navigation signals. As our dependence on GPS grows and space exploration expands, accurate space weather forecasting becomes ever more important.
An artist’s rendering (not to scale) of a cross-section of the magnetosphere, with the solar wind on the left in yellow and magnetic field lines emanating from the Earth in blue. The five THEMIS probes were well-positioned to directly observe one particular magnetic field line as it oscillated back and forth roughly every six minutes. In this unstable environment, electrons in near-Earth space, depicted as white dots, stream rapidly down magnetic field lines towards Earth’s poles. There, they interact with oxygen and nitrogen particles in the upper atmosphere, releasing photons and brightening a specific region of the aurora.
Credits: Emmanuel Masongsong/UCLA EPSS/NASA
The space environment of our entire solar system, both near Earth and far beyond Pluto, is determined by the sun’s activity, which cycles and fluctuates through time. The solar system is filled with solar wind, the constant flow of charged particles from the sun. Most of the solar wind is deflected from Earth by our planet’s protective magnetosphere.
However, under the right conditions, some solar particles and energy can penetrate the magnetosphere, disturbing Earth’s magnetic field in what’s known as a substorm. When the solar wind’s magnetic field turns southward, the dayside, or sun-facing side, of the magnetosphere contracts inward. The back end, called the magnetotail, stretches out like a rubber band. When the stretched magnetotail finally snaps back, it starts to vibrate, much like a spring moving back and forth. Bright auroras can occur during this stage of the substorm.
In this unstable environment, electrons in near-Earth space stream rapidly down magnetic field lines towards Earth’s poles. There, they interact with oxygen and nitrogen particles in the upper atmosphere, releasing photons to create swaths of light that snake across the sky.
Credit: NASA
To map the auroras’ electric dance, the scientists imaged the brightening and dimming aurora over Canada with all-sky cameras. They simultaneously used ground-based magnetic sensors across Canada and Greenland to measure electrical currents during the geomagnetic substorm. Further out in space, the five THEMIS probes were well-positioned to collect data on the motion of the disrupted field lines.
The scientists found the aurora moved in harmony with the vibrating field line. Magnetic field lines oscillated in a roughly six-minute cycle, or period, and the aurora brightened and dimmed at the same pace.
“We were delighted to see such a strong match,” said Evgeny Panov, lead author and researcher at the Space Research Institute of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Graz. “These observations reveal the missing link in the conversion of magnetic energy to particle energy that powers the aurora.”
The brightening and dimming of the aurora corresponds to the motion of the electrons and magnetic field lines.
“During the course of this event, the electrons are flinging themselves Earthwards, then bouncing back off the magnetosphere, then flinging themselves back,” Sibeck said.
When waves crash on the beach, they splash and froth, and then recede. The wave of electrons adopt a similar motion. The aurora brightens when the wave of electrons slams into the upper atmosphere, and dims when it ricochets off.
Before this study, scientists hypothesized that oscillating magnetic field lines guide the aurora. But the effect had not yet been observed because it requires the THEMIS probes to be located in just the right place over the ground-based sensors, to properly coordinate the data. In this study, scientists collected THEMIS data at a time when the probes were fortuitously positioned to observe the substorm.
Comments Off on Auroras Seen Moving To Rhythm Of Earths Magnetic Field
September 9th, 2016
The Daily Journalist community opinion.
A year ago, during one of our discussions here, I predicted that Donald Trump would face Hillary Clinton in the final phase of the elections. It came as a surprise to many experts when Trump officially snatched the nomination, but it’s because they overlooked social media and the impact it has on elections. Jeb Bush was doomed from the start of his campaign; he had no chance to win the Republican nomination.
Two years ago, I also predicted on a radio show, that the American progressive youth seemed completely opposed to capitalism and the free market, opting for an all-out democratic socialism reform ‘Made in America’ to control and regulate the financial elites that run Wall Street. Hillary defeated Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, but it wasn’t the blowout analyst expected in late 2015; it was a hard contested battle that showed what the future holds for America’s political landscape as changes take place in both parties. It’s the end of the Republican Party as we know it, and it will soon the end of the Democratic Party, as its shifts toward socialism.
The dark side of both parties also shows disturbing signs of new political adherents that have battled since western governments exist; the rise of anarchism, communism, Marxism is rapidly growing in America, and the hopes of the reemerge of a Francisco Franco/Augusto Pinochet type leader, that will battle against the extreme left has also started to show among the right –but even though both movements grow undetected by mainstream media, it won’t be a threat that will appear for at least one more decade. (I said it first)
Hillary and Trump will battle till November and only one will become President of The United States. They both are controversial candidates and present sides that disgust well informed voters from both parties.
1) Who you think will win?
2) Which candidate is more trustworthy and capable?
3) Who will deal better with Putin and Xi Jinping?
4) Who will help the economy and create more jobs?
5) Who will deal with ISIS and the Middle East more effectively?
6) What is your greatest concern about either one?
7) Anything else you want to add?
Dr. John Joseph RAY.
(He taught sociology at the University of New South Wales. His major research interests lays in psychological authoritarianism, conservatism, racism and achievement motivation)
“Question 1-5, all for Trump
6) What is your greatest concern about either one?
Trump does not always think things through
7) Anything else you want to add?
The Fascist Hillary would be a horror”
Jack Goldstone.
(He has worked extensively on forecasting global conflict and terrorism, and with the US Agency for International Development and the World Bank on providing democracy assistance to fragile states)
“My answer to all of 1-5 is “Hilary Clinton” as only she has the experience and temperament to be a capable, effective president. My greatest concern would be if Trump won, which would be a disaster for the US and the world.”
Jaime Ortega-Simo.
(The Daily Journalist president and founder)
Well over a month ago, I predicted that Donald Trump would beat Hillary Clinton despite the odds presented in Foxnews and CNN that clearly had Hillary outpointing Trump by 10 digits. Now, the enlighten media are rethinking his chances, especially networks that claimed he didn’t hold a candle against Hillary. I called Hillary, Americas Angela Merkel, and guess what? Trump not soon after called her “the new Angela Merkel.” Social media will doom Hillary, her scandals are everywhere in the web; no matter the donations she receives, she will lose and possibly by blowout via Youtube –mark my words! Bellow my prediction, I covered other points: http://thedailyjournalist.com/the-editors-point/despite-the-odds-donald-trump-will-beat-hillary-clinton-in-november/
One thing is my prediction, and another my political conviction. I think both candidates are unreliable, not very bright and present different social stigmas. Trump is highly volatile and an opportunist; Hillary is money hungry and a sneaky individual who has steadily tainted her reputation over the years with separate scandals. Hillary Clinton will be the last politician to represent the values of liberal Democrats, the future for democrats will shift to democratic socialism as I also predicted more than a year ago here: http://thedailyjournalist.com/elcafe/does-the-us-need-a-third-party-to-end-the-bipartisanship/”
It doesn’t matter who wins, the United States at this point won’t interfere with China and Russia — If those two countries decided to invade the Philippines or Ukraine, the US will abandon its allies — Its that simple. The question is how trade will play under three military powers on the near future”
Sebastian Sarbu.
(He is a military analyst and vice-president of National Academy of Security and Defense Planning. Member of American Diplomatic Mission for International Relations)
“There is little doubt that Donald Trump will be the next President of United States of America. Trump’s trip to Mexico, confirms that he will be the winner.
The whole international community is ready for change. The “global challenge”, presented by Donald Trump is very popular outside of the US. Donald Trump may not have theoretical skills like her arch-rival Hillary Clinton, but he has something better: the vocation of leadership.
The republican political party is now built around the central value of leadership. Donald Trump is a charismatic leader who speculated skillfully the American ideal of renaissance. Trump is the only one that promises to achieve everything needed by the global elites, but it is also a competition between different groups, elites and factions. Trump has the advantage to let people know that he can provide more, than what his opponent promise.
It is clear that Donald Trump will make an agreement with Russia and maybe China conditionally, but his actions will change the whole foreign policy of USA, with new risks and challenges for international order and global security.
Hillary Clinton is very radically against the current policies promoted by Russia. Hillary is better with human rights, culture and educational policies. Also the dialogue and partnerships with civil society are her major strengths, but it’s not enough.
People want a change and new determination because 2020 is a year for great initiative designed to have a wide projection in global affairs. With Hillary Clinton in command, the North Korean threat will become catastrophic. The political line of the US will change under Donald Trump, but at least, US policy is bipartisan and will continue to be — that wont change.”
Paul Pillar.
(He is a Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution and an Associate Fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy. He retired in 2005 from a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community)
“1. Polls, and the unsurprising repugnance over so much of what Trump says and does, point to a likely Clinton victory. But one can never rule out the effects of some sort of October surprise.
2. The huge gap in relevant experience between Clinton and Trump–who, if elected, would be the first U.S. president with absolutely no prior public service of any sort–speaks most directly to the issue of capability. Both candidates have problems on the trustworthiness scale, but on the related dimension of truthfulness, Trump is the one who is off the charts in the negative direction regarding shameless and serial telling of falsehoods.
3. The non-narcissistic former secretary of state would do the better job of that.
4. Neither candidate has gotten fully behind a much-needed boost in demand-generating spending on infrastructure. Clinton’s economic policies are likely to come closer to that than Trump’s, but a President Clinton may be stymied by a Republican majority in at least one house of Congress.
5. Same as the answer for #3, which applies to foreign policy in general.
6. With Trump, the greatest concern is with a personality and temperament that are woefully unsuited to the presidency. With Clinton, the concern is with over-reliance on military means to address overseas problems.”
John D. Vernon Sr.
(He has proudly served the United States of America for over 37 years as a Military Officer, retiring at the rank of Colonel,later serving as a Department of Defense civilian, and finally as a Township Supervisor.In 2012, John ran as a Conservative candidate for the U.S. Senate in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He is the CEO, American Warrior Press)
“The Presidential 2016 race here in the United States was first poised to be billed as the next clash of the Titans, but is shaping up to be more of a clash of two gasbags. In a time when the U.S. economy has not had a single quarter GDP growth of over 1% in the last decade and ISIS is growing and expanding its territory every day, we need a strong leader in the White House. History will show that at a minimum, we are four years away from that individual.
Everywhere I go today, people ask me who I’m voting for and who I think will win. When I tell them I’m not voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, most people give me the crazy eyes look. You see, I’m not tied to any political party and either way you go, in my opinion, you lose; therefore, there cannot be a winner in this election. What stands out regardless of whether you vote for Trump or Clinton, is the fact that America comes out as the clear loser.
America as a nation is going through a difficult period and we have been for some time now. How long it will last depends on who we elect to Congress and what leader we elect to the White House. What most of us know now is that our election process is greatly flawed. Just taking a look at the democrat primary and what has come out of that process, is that it was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. The release of DNC emails causing the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz proves that point.
Now having said that, we’re still faced with two candidates who should not be running for the highest office in the free world. In my opinion, a candidate who lacks experience can be trained by the people he or she surrounds themselves with. However, a candidate who lies and cannot be trusted can never be trained or become seen as capable because they come into the office with an agenda. The best example to such a person in Hillary Clinton and the highly publicized email scandal. Ask yourself this question: how does someone go from “dead broke” to a net worth of over $300M on a government salary? At least with Trump, it seems like he genuinely cares for the country. Hillary on the other hand, as Dinesh D’Souza says, is about stealing.
Now who among these two misfits would best deal with Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi Jinping is anyone’s guess. The worlds has become a very unstable place and it’s not “black and white” (no pun intended) as to what the world will be like come post January 16, 2017. What we know is that both foreign leaders will test whomever is elected and our nation will has to deal with yet another crisis overseas; it’s coming and there is nothing we can do but hang on.
So after the election, just when we thought we could exhale, our thoughts will return or perhaps remain focused on the economy and job creation. Here’s what we know. Hillary Clinton has said she will continue the policies of Barack Obama who has created dismal economic growth and allowed American wages to stagnate. Donald Trump on the other hand knows business and is best suited to get the economy moving in the right direction. I really like his concept of involving all 50 States in getting our military rebuilt.
Now, speaking of our military, over the past seven and a half years, our military has been degraded and embarrassed time and time again. Today, we are in big trouble. No country respects our military strength and we have been routinely tested by countries like North Korea, China, and Russia, by the demonstration of fly-bys, missile launches, and the building of artificial military bases.
Without question, Donald Trump will be the best candidate to defeat ISIS and manage the Middle East to a peaceful conclusion. Now, looking at Hillary Clinton to be fair, she has a decade of experience in voting for and working directly in the Obama administration for Middle East intervention. In every case, Hillary Clinton has been the individual who set Iraq, Libya and Syria on fire. She simply cannot be trusted because she routinely lies and misstates the facts to suite herself.
In sum, I am greatly concerned for America and her survival. Both candidates are unpredictable and we are headed into unchartered territory. No matter who gets elected, America loses and we will learn new lessons. One fact remains clear. Once this election is over, we won’t be going through this process again and hopefully, we will be a better nation because of it. However, the questions we have to ask ourselves is, how many people have to die before we realize that we were wrong about electing our candidates in 2016?”
Allen Schmertzler.
(He is an award winning and published political artist specializing in figurative, narrative and caricatured interpretations of current events)
“This is a wonderful question for academics and the rest of us who have a passion for politics. We love “what if” scenarios, the mental exercise without limits, that come with hypotheticals of how history and the future might be different, if only! But at the base level, this is a silly question that works best as a parlor game for those who want to sound-bite a political agenda, not as an exercise for reality.
Donald Trump is a reality TV personality-business mogul. Hillary Clinton has been, and is, wired, trained, schooled, experienced and a tribal member of an inner circle of professional politicians and world leaders. Her entire universe is embedded in and consumed by moving in this global network. Even how she and Bill Clinton have managed to become extremely rich is fashioned according to this world.
Donald Trump is a no-body of political experience and completely lacks any basis to be considered on the same level of “what if capabilities” to Hillary Clinton. I am not saying he will lose the election, most likely, but worlds can change in 70 days in ways no person can predict. The tea leaves only allow a prediction, they do not lie, and by every measurement we have available, Trump will lose. Losing or winning, is a different issue to measuring one’s qualifications. If a person is incapable of speaking fluid in policy issues then they have no knowledge of facts, and in the case of Mr. Trump, their qualifications end with overtures of “trust me because I only have the power of personality.”
So for the question to stand as “serious” there need to exist a foundation of credibility. Hands down, Hillary Clinton holds the credentials, without debate, Donald Trump has zero qualifications to be considered on this level. Hillary Clinton has the best team working with her, which is not to say that Trump could not assemble a world class team even though so many have already abandoned his traveling circus show. Hillary is a world class team alone, without the army of surrogates. She will assemble the best experienced team possible to orchestrate domestic and foreign affairs for this country. It is possible for Donald Trump to collect enough credible players to support his role as “President-In-chief-of Images,” but that is not the same as a comparison between two candidates. Donald Trump is incapable of spending 5-6 hours each night reading the briefings required of the job to secure a seamless production level from the White House to the country every 24 hour cycle. It is questionable if he has even read a serious book lately.
Say whatever you want to regarding Clinton’s “controversies and faults” because that would be fair, but never confuse human dimensions with the overwhelming evidence of experience, public record, and ambition-driven perseverance. There is no crime in wanting to make history or to be history in of itself. The road there can be slippery and poorly negotiated. There are few ‘others” such as Hillary Clinton who could sit for 11 hours getting drilled by a hostile “Select Congressional Committee,” survive it with their story unimpeachable, and in the process make her adversaries out to appear foolish and trite. That alone makes for Presidential qualifications. Donald Trump could not pay attention long enough to complete the 11 hour marathon. He could not stay ‘on message” because he is bankrupted and overdrawn from the Fact Bank. How the heck could he manage the world as President. We have already seen enough evidence so as to render this hypothetical moot. There very well exists other candidates, even in the Republican ranks that can do the job. None have survived the interview with the public or stepped up to audition. That leaves only Hillary Clinton as the answer to this clever writer’s prompt.”
Ron Aledo.
(He is a retired U.S Army officer, former senior analyst for the CIA (ctr), former senior analyst for the DIA (ctr), operations and intelligence officer for the Joint Staff- The Pentagon, advisor to the Chief of Analysis of the Afghan National Police in Kabul and former International Business Developer for L3 Communications)
“1) Who you think will win?
Trump about 60% chances. He is winning the blue collar vote in the swing/purple states. That blue collar vote is key on those states and those states are the ones that decide the general elections in the U.S. This is a phenomenon we did not see since Reagan. White workers from Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania , etc. are abandoning their natural house in the Democratic Party and joining the Republican Party just to vote for Trump. That will be decisive in November. Additionally there are several wild card variables that can help Trump if they occur: A) Leaks on Hillary’s email. They might come from Wikileaks or other sources. They can demonstrate corruption to a criminal level or at least seriously damage her image with voters. B) New criminal investigation to Hillary. There might be new evidence and the FBI or a special prosecutor might come with a new investigation. C) Trump uses all his muscle. Trump might donate $ 400 or 500 million to his campaign, buy the US National TV and inflict a knock out by the power of brute money. With or without the 2 potential wild card I still give Trump about 60% chances over Hillary.
2) Which candidate is more trustworthy and capable?
Trump. He has a ferocious personality and is a natural fighter. Hillary is manipulative, smart, and demagogically goes with the public opinion (against homosexual “marriage” when it was not popular, for it when it is popular). In a who is more capable to accomplish the mission, Trump wins. After all he already did the impossible already: defeated the Republican Party Establishment, the Bush Dynasty, the Marco Rubio “savior” status, and the extremely smart self promoting Cruz.
3) Who will deal better with Putin and Xi Jinping?
Trump. He will renegotiate US economic and trade deals with China which will bring high tension or pseudo conflict for a while but he will also ease the tension with China with his foreign policy. For example Trump most likely will also be a lot less interventionist in the Pacific/China Sea, and most likely remove the high altitude missile interceptors (THAAD system) from South Korea something that will make the relationship a lot easier. The new trade deals will begin to benefit the US a lot more and China will not be happy, but the less interventionist and less Hawkish foreign policy will compensate. The large US corporations that moved their production to China will have to adapt and bring back jobs to the US.
As per Putin, the relationship with Trump should be excellent as they have similar world views. Leaders with similar world view tend to have better relationship that those with opposite worldviews and personalities ( just look at the terrible relationship between the left wing secularist law professor Obama and the strong man spy master judo master Putin). Putin and Trump will most likely understand each other very well and Trump’s America First policy will suit well with Russia. Trump will stop the “real power behind the scene” policy towards Ukraine, stop NATO expansionism in Russia’s backyard and be far more cooperative with Russia in Syria. That and a policy based on pragmatism and not ideology and expansionism ( color revolutions and coup sponsorships) will be the base for a good relationship between Putin and Trump in addition to their similar personalities and worldviews.
4) Who will help the economy and create more jobs?
Trump will. His renegotiations of terms in trade with China will benefit the US economy. His potential efforts to bring back jobs will benefit blue collar workers (perhaps his strongest support base). Corporative revenue will somewhat shift from top earners and executives back to the workers. Trump will most likely keep union’s demands under control something that might make possible to bring back manufacturing jobs back to US soil. The America First foreign policy would help to keep spending and deficit under control. Trump will shift priority to the middle class and blue collar workers: manufacturing, coal miners, oil industry workers, automobile industry, etc. Free traders fundamentalists will sound the alarm and 2d nd 3d world trade partners will be uncomfortable but at the end it will benefit the US Main street workers and they will have to tolerate and adapt to it.
5) Who will deal with ISIS and the Middle East more effectively?
Trump as he will really coordinate with Russia to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq and he will not be guided by ideology but by pragmatism. Trump will not follow the current confusing and contradictory policies in Syria (a classic trademark of Obama) but will work together with Russia for the simple and concrete objective to defeat the Sunni extremist in the area. I also expect Trump to be an honest broker in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and to follow a similar policy than the European Union in this regard. Economic policies would also help to negotiate from a better position with the Middle East oil providers as Trump might very well invest in local US oil production. I expect the Neocons and War Hawks a la K street lobbyists, McCains and Grahams, and New York country clubs to have a lot less influence and power over Trump than perhaps any other President in the US recent history.
6) What is your greatest concern about either one?
Hillary will continue ideological expansion as per the Cultural Marxism playbook and democratic fundamentalism in the world. She would be an interventionist and continue some of the nonsense policies in Syria and other countries. She might continue to poke the Russian bear in its backyard and will continue the color revolutions and “democratic coup” policies. She will not and cannot be an honest broker in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and will be at the mercy of the Neocons, Hawks, lobbyists and interest groups. I see a renewed Cold War II with Hillary and endless intervention in the foreign policy arena and free trade that will continue to sink the US manufacturing industry in the economic one. She will act out of ideology and expand policies contrary to many countries Moral and religious practices: she will target Hungary because of its Christian constitution, several African countries because of their traditional views in marriage and soon or later even Muslim countries. Hillary’s Frankfurt School ideology will bring contradictions in policies that would make harder to engage terrorism effectively.
As for Trump I worried about global and internal sabotage. Trump is despised by Neocons and Hawks of Establishment of the Republican Party and universally by leftists and secularists. As for the US and international Press, Trump is something like an Antichrist/new Hitler/apocalyptic monster that must be attacked and defeated at all cost 24/7 in supreme effort. European Union elitists see Trump as their declared enemy. Therefore I worry about how much the global, economic, political and total sabotage from all these groups might restrain a Trump Presidency. From CNN, MSNBC, ABC to the K Street Lobbyists and interest groups, to democratic fundamentalists in the European Union to Black Lives Matters and La Raza, etc., etc., etc., I worried about global and total sabotage against the results of American Democracy.
7) Anything else you want to add?
I think this is one of the most, if not the most, decisive election on US history. The Republican Party of the Neocons and Bush Dynasty is forever gone. The mythical “Silent Majority” and the Deep America finally, after more than 50 years of continuous indoctrination in Cultural Marxism and politically correctness, found a representative and voice in Trump (an extraordinary political and social phenomenon by itself). A Hillary victory will be the end of the Judeo-Christian America and the complete and irreversible triumph of the Frankfurt School inspired by Gramsci and propelled by Adorno, Marcuse, Benjamin, Habermas and Horkheimer. Not only the US Supreme Court will be completely shaped and controlled by the New Left with Scalia and the soon to retire Clarence Thomas replaced by Frankfurt School alumni but also the political correctness victory will become irreversible. The “old” America will be forever gone and the Cultural War will be completely lost to the Traditionalists with a Hillary’s victory not to mention a new Cold War that might, if the pragmatic heads don’t act, become a hot war. November 2016 means for the American Democracy a decisive point that will mark the next generations to come and the definitive path of the country.”
Michael Smith.
(He is a professor of political science at Emporia State Univeristy. Teaches local politics, campaigns and elections, political philosophy, legislative politics, and nonprofit management)
“1) Who you think will win?
I predict Hillary Clinton will win with an electoral total similar to Barack Obama’s in either 2008 or 2012. A few new states, such as Missouri and Georgia, may be in play this year.
2) Which candidate is more trustworthy and capable?
Hillary is widely perceived as having trust issues because of the way she and former President Clinton profit from their political contacts, and because of the issues with e-mail, which do not appear to have compromised national security but do show a certain sense of privilege. That said, one study had her being the most honest of all the candidates on the stump, and she is one of the most experienced people to ever seek the presidency. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson
3) Who will deal better with Putin and Xi Jinping?
Hillary she has plenty of foreign policy experience as Senator and Secretary of State—and even as First Lady—and I think she will be an effective, if cautious president
4) Who will help the economy and create more jobs?
Trump’s personality will likely alienate a lot of trade partners and other financial actors, so it’s Hillary, hands down. Her economic policies are likely to be similar to Bill Clinton’s, basically moderate Republican if moderate Republicans still existed.
5) Who will deal with ISIS and the Middle East more effectively?
Hillary may actually be a bit more hawkish than Obama, particularly on Syria http://thehill.com/policy/defense/287479-debate-rages-in-clinton-camp-over-syria-policy
6) What is your greatest concern about either one?
Hillary has the potential to be a very fine president but her refusal to renounce profiting from her personal contacts, and her fears about openness are her two greatest liabilities. Trump would simply be a mess, possibly delegating heavily to his cabinet and staff.”
Peter D. Rosenstein.
(He is a non-profit executive, journalist and Democratic and community activist. His background includes teaching; serving as Coordinator of Local Government for the City of New York; working in the Carter Administration; and Vice-chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia)
“1) Who you think will win?
Hillary Clinton will win- Americans are not ready to take our country down the Rabbit Hole of a Trump Presidency or to accept his racism, sexism, homophobia or bullying that are serving only to divide our country more. I have faith that the American voter will do the right thing in the long run even though the American Press seems to be willing to give Trump a pass on nearly everything. It would be interesting to see his tax returns which most likely show how indebted he is to Russian banks and Oligarchs.
2) Which candidate is more trustworthy and capable?
Easily the answer to both is Clinton. She is the most experienced and capable person to run for the Presidency in the United States maybe ever. Certainly in the last decades. She is totally trustworthy. Anyone who believes she isn’t is buying into over twenty-five years and a billion dollars of Republican attacks on her.
3) Who will deal better with Putin and Xi Jinping?
It is a question of how you want to deal with them. Trump would most likely have a better relationship with Putin as he spouts policy options allowing Putin to expand Russia’s orbit of control. But that isn’t good for the United States or the world. Clinton will have a realistic relationship with Russia and work to control Putin’s aggressiveness. Clinton will have the better and more productive relationship with Xi Jinping. She understands China and knows the United States needs to have a productive relationship with them. The kind of saber-rattling Trump does about China is totally unproductive. About the only thing he understands about China is that he has his shirts or ties made there.
4) Who will help the economy and create more jobs?
Clinton will easily be better for the economy and jobs. Historically in the United States Democrats create more jobs and end up with a better economy. Trump will simply be good for the rich. He doesn’t understand if the poor and middle-class have more money and higher wages it is good for the economy. If Clinton can get her infrastructure plan passed it will be great for the American economy.
5) Who will deal with ISIS and the Middle East more effectively?
Clinton will as she at least has a better understanding of the problems and better understands that to deal effectively with ISIS we need to work with the Muslim countries in the world and not continually insult them. Dealing with ISIS will not be easy in any case and it will take the entire civilized world working together to deal with them and eventually defeat them. Clinton has experience working in the Middle East and will continue to work to find solutions which seem so far out of reach. It may be wise to use Bill Clinton, who tried until the last day of his presidency to reach a deal in the middle east, to work on the issues of the Middle East.
6) What is your greatest concern about either one?
My greatest concern with Trump is that he will act more like a dictator than a President. He has zero understanding of what it will mean to work with the global community or even the US Congress. He has shown he doesn’t understand the Constitution or even freedom of the Press. He would be a total disaster for the United States and if he is serious about the idea of withdrawing from NATO then Europe will surely suffer as well. Clinton will have an easier time if Democrats can take back the Congress. It looks like Democrats will take back the Senate but not the House. Her biggest problem will be that the Republicans in Congress will continue to do what they did to Obama and try to obstruct every piece of Democratic proposed legislation.
7) Anything else you want to add?
The world needs to understand how dangerous a Donald Trump presidency would be to everyone.”
Claude Forthomme.
(Senior Editor of Impakter Magazine. Passionate traveller (80 countries+) 25 years experience in United Nations: project evaluation specialist; FAO Director for Europe/Central Asia)
“I think Hillary Clinton will win; she is by far more trustworthy and capable. Actually to say she is more trustworthy than Trump who is a serial liar isn’t saying much; and to say she is more capable is simply stating the obvious: there is nothing that Trump,as a businessman, has brought to fruition, he has lost most of the money he inherited from his father, he is only good at surviving bankruptcy and failure.
True, Clinton is an “old-type” politician and that doesn’t make her very exciting. But she knows politics inside out, she knows what she will face as President of the United States and she is clearly better able to deal with Putin and Xi Jinping, with the Middle East crisis and ISIS, indeed, with any new challenge that might arise in future.
Which of the two can best help create jobs and lift the economy?
There’s not question that Clinton is better placed: she has solid economic advice from experts and she listens to it, she has taken on board much of Sander’s social-leaning policies, she says she will use her husband’s job-building capacities.
What does Trump say he will do? Forcefully deport 11 million immigrants? Build a wall against Mexico and get them to pay for it( fat chance)? Lower taxes on the super-rich to jump-start the economy (but that has historically and demonstrably failed to work)? He has no economic plan; basically, he’s nothing more than a con artist, a TV reality show star and an aging playboy on his last stand.
Surely not presidential material.
The question is: why is anyone taking him seriously? Historically, he is the least serious candidate the world has seen in the past 50 or 100 years. That’s a record of sorts. The meme you keep hearing in the media is that he appeals to the middle class white man who’s been bypassed/downgraded/pushed aside by globalization and lives off racist hatred and fear of the future – and it seems that there are plenty such unhappy individuals across the United States, maybe some 30 million of them (though I do see women among his followers, maybe the wives, the sisters?).
30 million is both a lot and not enough to win. A lot in terms of social media: he’s a star on Twitter and people no longer read serious papers, I hear that most Americans get their news on Facebook. Why is that bad? Because Facebook is an echo chamber and echo chambers are bad for independent thinking: You only read the news you want to hear. Facebook with its algorithms makes sure that you do, that you never get to hear the opposition. You live in a nice comfortable bubble where everyone thinks the way you do.
But this comes with a price: When you listen to only one side of the story, you lose sight of what is information and what is disinformation. The truth eludes you.
Can social media win the Presidency for Trump?
That’s my biggest fear, let me explain. Trump is riding a negative wave of hatred and fears, just as Farage did when he got Britain to vote for Brexit back in June. And Farage (along with his friend Boris Johnson) created a maelstrom of disinformation, spreading lies about the EU, making short shrift of what the UK really got out of its EU membership (a lot more than it gave). And, against all logic, he won. But that was a narrow vote: 17 million to exit the EU vs. 16 million to stay in. Plus the fact that many people who had registered to vote did not bother to go (some 12 million).
But the UK is a small country compared to the US. Are the 30 million supporters of Trump enough to bring him into the White House? I doubt it…Unless people stay home, like they did in Britain, figuring that it wasn’t worth the hassle to vote. And look at where Britain is today, with a falling pound and rising inflation…
I sincerely hope the same won’t happen to America.”
Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi.
(His research interests focus on the international relations, particularly with reference to the EU’s affairs, the United Nations affairs, the US foreign policy and prevention of conflict-studies. He contributed to the publications to the Daily Dawn (a leading English newspaper) and the Pakistan Observer (an Islamabad-based English daily)
“A-1 As for winning the election 2016, the seemingly indicators suggest that both the candidates would have to go through an acid test of people choice. The Democrat Hillary albeit having some positive points of consideration as compared to the Republican presidential candidate Ronald Trump. And yet it appreciates to be a high task to predict the victory, If Hillary loses the trust in the eye of the majority of the Americans because of her Emails scandal, there appears a rich probability that Trump will emerge as the victor.
A-2 So far as the question regarding the capability and trustworthiness is concerned, in my humble opinion both candidates do lack the faculty of trust to win the heart and minds of the American public. But as far as the matter regarding the capability is concerned, I positively endorse Hillary Clinton as more articulate, mature, astute, resourceful and poised than Trump. Hillary does have all that aplomb and assiduity required to become the president of the United States of America.
A-3 As for dealing the Russian president Putin, it logically appears much palatable that Trump would deal better since during his election campaign, he has enormously demonstrated his cliché to deal with Putin. Mr. Trump has floated the idea of creating a new alliance with Russia, saying a reset of relations is necessary to help ease tensions in Syria and elsewhere. President Putin has said complimentary things about Mr. Trump, which the GOP candidate has said expresses good faith. The perceived warmth between the two men, as well as the close ties between Moscow and some of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, have led some in the U.S. to posit that a Trump presidency would be a boon to Mr. Putin.
Mrs. Clinton has called Mr. Putin a “bully,” and has described the relationship between the U.S. and Russia as complicated. During the 2008 presidential election, she said Mr. Putin “was a KGB agent, by definition he doesn’t have a soul.” Mr. Putin later responded by saying, “I think at a minimum it’s important for a government leader to have a brain.” As secretary of state, she worked to broker more cooperation between the two countries. In 2009, she posed with Mr. Putin for a photo-op in which they pushed a big, red “reset” button.
But as regard to dealing Mr Xi Jinping, Hillary Clinton seems to have more profound and tactful art of diplomacy to handle him. Whereas, Mr. Trump has bashed China persistently from his opening speech as a candidate, describing it as one of the U.S.’s top adversaries, particularly when it comes to economic policy. Mr. Trump says he would label China a currency manipulator, crack down on hacking, and threaten the Chinese government with steep tariffs if it doesn’t agree to rewrite trade agreements.
The socio-politico dynamics reflect that despite the fact that Trump has manifold anomalies and shortcomings as compared to his counterpart, Hillary Clinton holds much better gravity to attract the US public because of his political jugglery.
A-4 So far as the question with regard to the US economy is concerned, it fairly and pertinently appears that both the candidates, Democratic or Republican have no clear cut agenda. Clinton has laid out a comprehensive proposal for capital gains tax reform, in order to discourage the short-term speculation mentality she terms “quarterly capitalism” and encourage long-term investments. Trump supports raising taxes on the very wealthy – arguing that the current tax code requires them to pay very little if anything at all – and lowering taxes on the middle class.
A-5 And of course, on this issue of dealing with the IS is concerned, Hillary Clinton has a better edge over Trump as she has had an enriched experience regarding the foreign affairs. Mr. Trump has said he won’t give a fully detailed plan to defeat Islamic State because it would take away the element of surprise. But he has said he would “bomb the shit” out of the group’s oil operations. He said it could take 30,000 U.S. troops to defeat ISIS in the Middle East, but he hasn’t committed to deploying a force of that size.
Mrs. Clinton has said Sunni Muslims and Kurdish forces should play a bigger role in combating ISIS, and has also called for expanding U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria to defeat the terror network. She has also called for combating Islamic State’s ability to use social media to recruit, train, and plan attacks, urging more cooperation from technology companies. She also has said the U.S. should play a bigger role in helping resolve the humanitarian crisis caused by a huge wave of migrants fleeing Syria.
A-6 My greatest concern regarding Donald Trump is that he seems to have preserved prejudicial thinking about Islam and the Muslims. He must appreciate the principle of unity in diversity. And for Hillary, she has to be more articulate whiling dealing both the foreign relations and domestic policies.
A-7 While juxtaposing Trump’s policies with those of Hillary’s one may reasonably find that Hillary represents an academic approach towards US’s foreign relations; whereas, the policy nurtured and advocated by Ronald Trump does reflect a sleepwalking approach.
http://2016.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Clinton&vs=Trump&on=taxes
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-on-foreign-policy/“
Halyna Mokrushyna.
(Holds a doctorate in linguistics and MA degree in communication. She publishes in Counterpunch, Truthout, and New Cold War on Ukrainian politics, history, and culture. She is also a contributing editor to the New Cold War: Ukraine and beyond and a founder of the Civic group for democracy in Ukraine)
“My favorite candidate was Bernie Sanders, although it was clear from the beginning that he did not have a chance. Out of the two main candidates I prefer Donald Trump because he is an anti-establishment candidate who is more honest than a versed in politics Hillary, the mouthpiece of Wall Street, corporations of the military industrial complex, and of the elite of American bureaucracy in Pentagon, CIA, and ANS. Trump is not afraid of saying what he thinks, providing American mainstream media endless opportunities to ridicule him and present him as a buffoon. However, this vendetta by neo-liberal press is not very successful: the most recent CNN/ORC poll shows that 50% of Americans see Trump as more honest and trustworthy versus just 35% for Clinton and as the stronger leader, 50% to 42%.
Trump speaks for and to millions of Americans, tired of official neoliberal ideology of political correctness. This hypocritical ideology does not reflect conservative, Christian values of WASP America. Trump is a voice of that America. He is also a voice for white working class without college education – 68% would vote for him as compared to 24% for Clinton, according to the same poll. Trump as an example of successful, hard-working billionaire appeals to men (54% versus 32% for Hillary Clinton), and less to women (38% versus 53% for Hillary). Clinton appeals more to younger voters (under age of 45) – 54% to Trump’s 29%, while the older ones (age 45 or older) are more apt to back Trump (54% to 39% for Clinton). American electorate is clearly divided along white/non-white lines: Hillary Clinton is a clear favorite of non-whites (71%), while Trump is only supported by 18%.
This is not surprising, given Trump’s controversial statements about building a wall on the American-Mexican border or deporting all illegal immigrants from the U.S. Such candid statements shock Americans, used to well-rounded, polished speeches of Hillary Clinton, who mastered the art of political correctness during many years in American high politics, eight years as a Senator (2001-2009), and four years as the Secretary of State (2009-2013).
Trump is an outsider to high politics, and as such he inevitably makes half-baked statements. He is also a media personality and is not afraid of expressing controversial, even scandalous opinions. This ‘red-haired devil’ (as Russian writer Eduard Limonov aptly baptized Trump) is a stream of fresh air in corridors of power, filled with dead air of hypocrisy and impasse of political correctness. Trump appeals to those who desire change, and I think, Trump will win out of his sheer novelty in American political establishment. He did not discredit himself with disastrous decisions and actions in foreign policy, like Hillary Clinton did. I think traditional, conservative WASP America will give Trump a chance.
Hillary Clinton is a decommissioned material, so to speak, in all senses. Reports of her worsening mental health made it even to the mainstream media. She has been in politics too long. She had her finest hour in 2009-2013 as the Secretary of State, and this ‘finest hour’ was tainted by spectacular failures, such as the U.S.-sponsored toppling of Kaddafi government in Libya and an on-going reckless attempt to overthrow Bashar all-Assad in Syria.
Tens of thousands of civilians dead, millions of refugees, a never-ending civil war. This is American exceptionalism, embraced and practiced by Hillary Clinton. The U.S. must lead in the expansion of neoliberal democracy, otherwise there will be a vacuum. A unipolar world, which exists only in Clinton’s imagination. Pax Americana, spread around the world through finances of moguls from Wall Street and weapons produced by the U.S. gigantic military—industrial complex. Hillary Clinton-president means more bellicose foreign policy of the U.S, more political correctness hypocrisy which masks an epic failure of neoliberal elites to make world more just and equal.
Clinton as a mouthpiece of this elite represents a yesterday, while Trump holds a promise of a different future. The true candidate for change, who would bring more equality and justice, was Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, he stood no chance in the political system, based on money and profit. ‘Crazy’ Trump, jest of neoliberal American elites and media, has a sounder, realpolitik approach to foreign policy. He can deal with Russia much better than Hillary Clinton who is blinded by faith in America’s mission to democratize the world at the cost of hundreds of thousands of human lives.
The world has changed in the last ten years. Russia made a comeback in strength and reasserts itself on international arena. Putin stands up to the hegemony of Western democracy, aptly building relationships with powerful allies (BRICS) and creating an alternative to dollar-based international economy. Russia will not bind anymore to the dictate of the West. And China, with its ever-growing economy, will in ten years or so depose the U.S. as the biggest economy in the world. Trump as a self-made billionaire is better equipped to handle economic challenges and has more common sense and willingness to negotiate, compared to Clinton.
At least, he does not fall into anti-Russian paranoia, as Hillary Clinton does, with ungrounded, unproven allegations that Russia is trying to influence the U.S. elections – I refer to the Democrats statement that it was Russian hackers who broke the server of the DNC and leaked emails, exposing the DNC as an undemocratic operation. Clinton also believes that Putin is the ‘godfather’ of European right-wing anti-migrant parties, indeed, a truly ridiculous proposition, as Gary Leupp noticed.
This obsession with Putin all-mighty prevents Clinton and her clan from seeing reality. The Soviet Union is long gone. But Clinton’s America in its mission to save the world desperately needs an evil Other, and always finds one. This is what worries me the most if she gets elected. As for Trump, I think he will moderate a lot his speech and actions if he gets elected. He does not have a choice –he needs the support of high ranking bureaucrats to smoothly run the political and economic machinery and the support of political and economic elites to formulate and carry out an en efficient domestic and foreign policy, based on consensus.
To me Trump is an incarnation of America, built on hard work, unwavering faith in God and traditional Christian values. Trump is right-in-your face incarnation of earnest capitalism; he is genuine, what you see is what you get type of personality, while Hillary Clinton, being a mouthpiece of transnational corporations, cloaks herself into deceiving discourse of ‘blue-sky globalism’, democracy and equality, which transnational capital will never realize. For that simple reason I think Trump would be a better President of the U.S. than Clinton and I will not be surprised if he wins.”
Nake M. Kamrany.
(He is an eminent Afghan-American development economist with superior experience in economic development who is held in high esteem by the international development community, Afghan leaders, scholars, the private sector and intellectuals. He has more than 20 publications on the political economy of Afghanistan)
“Let me be succinct and to the point and identify 15 criteria for comparison.
- Duration in public life – Clinton served 8 years as first lady influencing Mr. Clinton policies, 4 years as N.Y. senator, 4 years as secretary of State plus several years as first lady in Arkansas. Mr. Trump never held public office before and therefore is being vindicated and exonerated from socialand economic ills (domestic and international).
- Under Clinton watch the federal government caused fire to a religious compound in WACO, Texas causing death of children and worshipers. Under the Constitution citizens ae granted total freedom of religious belief. The government was in breach of the Constitution under Clinton watch. Although Janet Reno, attorney general, assumed full responsibility but we all know that the buck stops at the desk of the President.
- During Clinton presidency tribal wars caused wide scale massacre of tribes in Africa, the U.S. as superpower could have prevented the massacre but failed to act.
- During Clinton watch, Osama bin Laden bombed two U.S. embassy in Africa and attach U.S. warship Cole, Clinton did not retaliate effectively, shot one missile which missed the target, instead landed in a wedding party. An effective retaliation could have prevented the tragedy of 9/11.
- U.S. citizens are encountered with lower earnings, higher rates of poverty, higher rates of real unemployment, underemployment and withdrawal from the employment market due to lack of jobs.
- The infrastructure throughout the economy has detreated and has fallen below European countries.
- Student loans have caused many American families in debt while such education is free in European
Countries.
- Black Life has suffered long term determination while the Clintons were in power for several decades.
- While Ms. Clinton served as U.S. senior, not a single bill passed the U.S. Senate named after Clinton.
- The use of the office of secretary of state to take contribution from foreign heads of states for a private charity under the Clinton name was immoral, illegal, and dishonor to the prestige of the U.S. government.
- Medical cost, especially medicine is the highest in the U.S. hurting senior citizens and he poor – an outcome of Clinton’s failed policies.
- Collection of very high fees for speeches was another example of the wicket promotion of private wealth under the shadow of public title and influence.
- The killing of black people on the streets of the cities of the U.S. under a democratic administration is crime against humanity and the government of the U.S. has failed to stop it.
- Finally he radicalization of U.S. government policy in war and peace is un-American, sad and regretful, the incessant bombing of villages and villagers in Afghanistan for 15 years, and he broader Middle East and some African countries equate the U.S. actions with those of insurgents.
In all of the above criteria Clinton bear some responsibility and /Trump none.
- Ostensibly the hallmark or seal of Mr. Barack Obama’s (a precursor of Clinton) presidency is blemished with radicalization of his administration in foreign policy. Radicalization is not limited to insurgent groups or “lone wolf,” it is widespread and contagious. Radicalization is usually a response to inequity and leads to retaliation or an expression of disapproval to a harm. It is not necessarily instigated by religious belief, ethnicity and the like. According to a study at George Washington University, “no clues were found to explain the recent surge in American recruits to Jihadism.” The report added, “In the end, we found no clear profile. The path to radicalization wasn’t linear or predictable. Islamic State recruits were old and young, rich and poor, college graduates and high school dropouts. Some had deep knowledge of Islam while others had only a superficial understanding of the faith. While they shared an affinity for the jihadists ideology they manifested that support in a variety of ways—from joining the so-called caliphate to raising money to send to Syria or Iraq,” (3) it is conducted by individuals, group of individuals, organizations, nation states including weak and powerful nations. McVey, a former U.S. soldier blew up a federal building in Oklahoma causing death to innocent children and worshipers who were killed. The government’s action was a violation of the church group’s constitutional right prohibiting government’s interfere in religious belief.
Superpower governments’ leaders have succumbed to radicalization such as Valdemar Putin who feel nostalgic to recreate the former Soviet Union empire and has invaded a couple of former Soviet colonies and Barack Obama who has engaged in wars with seven states in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The U.S. and Russian Republic’s bombings in the Middle East and Eastern Europe are acts of radicalization. Instead of employing diplomacy the threat system has been employed. The U.S. has been engaged in wars in 7 third world countries during the presidency of President Obama by his own admission. It follows that his legacy will be a radicalized war president and historian will label him as such. Recent trends of U.S. war policy further cement the continuation of broader war. For instance, the fifteen year occupation of Afghanistan has been extended for five additional years despite the fact that it is already the longest war in all of U.S. history. (4) The Afghans have a saying, “Riding a donkey is one shame, getting off the donkey’s back is another shame.” Obama does not know how to get off the donkeys back.
Print a cartoon here (GET OFF DONKEY’S BACK MR. PRESIDENT.’)
It is deplorable that both of the 2016 U.S. Political campaigns and the world at large is silent about Afghanistan’s dreadful quandary. The U.S./NATO use of force for 15 years has shown to be failing in terms of eliminating the security threat or installing a stable political order and liberal values. This situation is largely due to conception by Afghan population that the U.S./NATO military assault had no legitimacy. (5) It was rendered ineffective despite one trillion dollars of cost and over 3000 loss of G.I bloods.
Rationality dictates that peace be given a chance through negotiation and diplomacy? The Taliban has shown willingness to participate in a peace accord.
This week President Obama ordered bombing in Libya in retaliation to ISIS operations. The order was not ratified by the U.S. Congress. Aside from this digression of authority, the Middle East wars, in addition to Iraq, Syria, Libya and other locations is a manifestation of radicalization by a sole super power of the world. (2) It is abdicating its leadership role – using the threat system instead of propagating peace, economic development, education and liberal values. If the military assault is to continue thus. Congress would have to authorize it and place limits on its extent and an exit strategy. Nevertheless, the victims in the Libyan city of Surt will sustain incessant bombing cause damages to villagers who are women, children and civilian population, not ISIS fighters.
There are several million followers of ISIS in the broader Middle East countries, how many million people do the U.S. Intend to kill and for how long? There is no doubt that the population of ISIS are radicalized in response to their loss of relatives, homes, villages and living conditions. Yes, it is in response to incessant bombing of their villages and homes that they have become radicalized. What other choices do they have but to retaliate in any form that they see fit.
The nature of war has shifted drastically over time due to advent of modern technologies, shift and movement of population. The arrival of modern technology has created new environment for individuals to respond to inequities and launch “lone wolf” attacks. These new and assisting technologies include such development as the internet, computers, migration, transportation and communication plus refugee-migration. The old traditional wars produced victors and defeaters in relatively short periods of time who then would negotiate and arrange armament. Modernly it is the “lone wolf” approach and other radicalized methods largely guerrilla type of hit and run. This form of resistance is very complex to defend whose perpetrator are willing to commit suicide in exchange for inflicting damages upon innocent population in Western cafes and other soft targets. While drones and aerial bombing inflict enormous damages they are not effective to produce surrender and defeat the indigenous population. Because the radicalized “lone wolves” do not have a nucleus of command and control. In most cases they represent decisions by a single individual or a few people and their aim is retaliation to a perceived unjustifiable harm. It follows that the Western nations could be engulfed in an “endless war” and sustain damages that are hard to protect or defend. The Western nations should be cognizant of damages that their own population will sustain due to the inequities that their own governments inflict upon the third world nations as has been the case currently in Afghanistan and the broader Middle East and Parts of Africa in the last several years.
From the 1800s to the present, Great Britain quit four Anglo-Afghan wars because they were determined to be very costly. The Soviet Union quit Afghanistan when it was determined very costly after 10 years of occupation. The current U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan is in its 16th years.
The war with ISIS in several Middle East countries is and continues to be very costly and could be continuous. The objectives of these wars are not defined, no exist strategy is devised, foot soldier will be at great risk and their engagement will be prohibitive. Aerial bombing while devastating villages are not effective beyond killing children, women and civilians and destroying homes.
In the final analysis it should be noted that peoples of all walks of life have a preference for life and living than death. The preference applies to insurgent groups such as ISIS and our own GIs. Their lives are not free. Therefore, negotiating peace through diplomacy with any and all kind of advisories is a fertile ground to end these senseless wars and establish world peace. Super powers and Western powers should not get involved in sectarian, religious, tribal, ethnic and associated local disputes in the third world. Instead they should be the instrumentality of peace, resolving local disputes and promoting liberal ideals throughout the world for betterment of humanity. “
John Mariotti.
(He as spoken to thousands of people in the business, professional and university audiences in the US and Europe; he hosted a one-hour talk-radio show on the North American Broadcasting Network, (The Life of Business & the Business of Life); founded & moderated, The Reunion Conference, an annual roundtable/think-tank for 16 years)
“1) Who you think will win?
At this point, it seems that Clinton will win, (Because of the electoral map is heavily influenced by populous Democratic, and heavily minority concentrations in states on both coasts. It will take a monumental upset for Trump to win.) I pray that she doesn’t for the sake of America’s next generations.
2) Which candidate is more trustworthy and capable?
Trump. He may say alarming things, but when the chips are down, he moderates his positions. He is clearly the more experienced and capable executive (In spite of his narcissism—a trait he shares with Barack Obama). Clinton has accomplished nothing except to hold a series of high profile positions in which she was exalted—but was badly flawed, scandal ridden and full of lies.)
3) Who will deal better with Putin and Xi Jinping?
Trump. Clinton will continue to let them “run over” the USA just as Obama has. Clinton is basically Obama’s fourth term. His first three have been failures in every aspect except spending the USA into enormous deficits and debt and making articulate speeches, then never taking decisive actions—except his attempts to circumvent Congress and the Constitution, and use his government agencies to punish Americans and his opposition (IRS, EPA, Justice Department, etc, etc.).
4) Who will help the economy and create more jobs?
Trump. Clinton never created a job, except for her several illicit cronies. She has no idea how to, either, except to throw taxpayer money at making jobs. Neither she nor Barack Obama understand that the government doesn’t create jobs. The government cannot increase the wealth of the USA. It can only retard it. The government has no income, and creates no wealth on its own. It only takes money from the people and businesses in the USA that do create wealth and then spend it, wastefully. (e.g., Obama’s stimulus package: each job created cost the US taxpayers $275,000)
5) Who will deal with ISIS and the Middle East more effectively?
Trump. Clinton views them similarly to how Obama did (albeit she is less Muslim-biased), as “somebody else’s problems.” Soft on Syria, Iran, Egypt, et. al., is a policy that simply asks for more Middle East trouble. “Leading from behind” is NOT leading at all. Until an ISIS attack hits the Obama (or Clinton) White House, neither will understand how their passive, complicit diplomacy is a joke to ISIS’ brutal leaders, and to most of the Middle East. Nobody trusts Clinton (any more than they trust Obama)—to do anything she says, let alone what she might promise.
6) What is your greatest concern about either one?
Hillary Clinton simply cannot be believed or trusted for anything—except to lie as needed and aim for more of the status quo—four more years of Barack Obama’s tax and spend liberal/socialist agenda—and stagnant US growth. Clinton lies so often that she loses track of which lies she told, when. (Then she goes into her “I must have been confused mode.”) Her irresponsible handling of national security information, started with her attempt to hide the Clinton Foundation’s illicit operations (using the servers Bill already had in the basement).
In setting up her private servers, she inadvertently ran afoul of government regulations, which she knowingly agreed/signed to comply with—and thus was able to stall, hide, obfuscate and outright lie—about what she actually did that was wrong. A list of her career-long scandals fills pages. In recent years, lies about Benghazi (a video?), about turning over all of her emails (a joke), of not losing control of classified information (fuzzy definitions, aided and abetted by Obama, “there’s classified and then there’s Classified” on the Fox News interview).
We have seen 8 years of a president who lies with such ease that it almost goes unnoticed, and is repeated so often it becomes familiar as the truth. (“You can keep your Doctor”…over and over).
I do not want eight more years of the status quo—Little or no growth, the poorest Americans suffering worst, in spite of record spending, rising taxes to pay for it and even higher borrowing, and then lie and shift the blame when things go wrong. (Bush’s fault, Congress’s fault, “the American people just didn’t understand me,”—always someone else’s fault
Trump is competitive and his response to a personal attack is to lash out—usually with words that are ill-advised. Trump is meteoric, speaks his mind, (often without filtering what he says), and misstates facts that he recalls to support his positions. The lies that Trump stumbles into are those of “puffery” and reliance of recall and impressions instead of hard data. Those are fixable, as he has proven, walking back from the most egregious. He has already begun to show regrets for some extreme things he said in the heat of campaigning. Given the staff and the responsibility of the biggest job in the world will further sober Donald Trump. Even his ebullient nature has become more muted as the election nears.
The USA has problems so large and diverse, made worse in the last 12 years, that only a revolution and restructuring of US government and institutions will even have a chance to fix anything. Even that kind of revolution can only make things incrementally better in the near term. Clinton cannot even imagine such a revolution. Trump might be able to lead one, and to break the bad habits of entrenched power structures inside the Beltway.
7) Anything else you want to add?
Yes, Here’s a piece I’ve been developing on the magnitude of the problem created by the combination of Bush’s second term fiasco, aided and abetted by a terrible GOP Congress, and Obama’s worse performance, doubling the national debt in 8 yearsand sending the deficit on a path to impossible levels, while doing nothing to help the growth of the US economy other than allowing the Fed to pump imaginary money into the economy at near zero interest rates. If Trump could win—a long shot, and retain GOP control of both Houses of Congress—progress could be made. Nothing fixes the US economic picture like growth. Going for Obama’s 1.5% growth to a 3.5-4% growth economy would reverse many of the bad trends, but if, and only if, the Congress can restrain spending and giving money away wastefully.
Here is that piece in draft format. I will share it here, even though the final version is a month or two away.
The Debt Bomb:
Why “it really doesn’t matter” who wins in November—until—It Does.
A famous line of Hillary Clinton’s after she was proven to have lied and misled the American people about Benghazi was “it really doesn’t matter?” The same line fits the coming presidential election. In the long term, 30, 40, or 50 years, it probably only matters a little. However, in the next 15-20 years, then it matters a lot who wins.
What does that mean? In the long term, the USA has dug an economic hole so deep that there is no reasonable chance to dig out of it. I call it the Debt Bomb, waiting to go off. The Gross Domestic Product GDP, the sum of all economic activity in the US economy is about $20 Trillion/year (Note: A trillion is a million-million—a very big number).
The US Debt is quickly approaching $20 Trillion too. Thanks to Barack Obama’s past 7+ years, that worse by about 1/3 from when Obama took office. (Of course he’d like to blame George W. Bush for that, but the nameplate on the desk in the White House says “Barack Hussein Obama.”)
The lack of any meaningful economic recovery has kept revenue growth very low (1-2%/year growth), while Obama, like president Bush before him—has continued to spent and spend and spend. “Tax the rich” has been Obama’s mantra, but as celebrity consultant Tony Robbins aptly showed in 2012, the rich simply don’t have enough money to pay the bills that Obama has run up. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9Okak —for the facts circa 2012 when the deficit was only $15 trillion.)
Now, IF the US could grow at rates more like 5% (Reagan era growth), for a long, long time—say 20-25 years, (which has never been done), the extra tax revenue coming in might actually cut that $20 trillion debt in half. Unless, of course, successive presidents and Congresses go on spending sprees and run it back up. The government’s idea of cutting spending is not to decrease the amount spent compared to the prior year. It is just to reduce the amount of the increase from what they had planned on. Really? (Do not try this with your household budget.)
Even if the successive presidents and Congresses reined in spending, (and there is an enormous amount of wasted spending in the US government), it’s unlikely they could cut enough to wipe out the deficit. Why? Because there would be a huge recession, which would slow or stop the growth needed. We forget that all or most of the government’s spending goes to pay people (government employees) who are also consumers, and to pay government contractors, (which are private companies that also employ people), both of which are consumers that spend money in the economy, in one way or another. Cut them and the jobless rolls explode.
Every billion dollars slashed from government spending is a billion dollars of someone’s spendable income—either personal or corporate—but then corporations are just a bunch of people in offices, aren’t they? (Remember: A trillion dollars is a thousand billion, which in turn is a thousand million.)
But even if, by some amazing feat of global economic growth, America could balance its annual budget and reduce its debt, that’s not the biggest problem.
(By the way, President Clinton’s claim to fame: a balanced budget with a surplus was also an illusion. The budget was balanced because of huge taxable profits on revenue increases from the dot-com bubble. It turns out that those tax payments and the big profits on which they were based were illicit—and illusion—and tax returns had to be restated. In the following few years. Pres. George H. W. Bush’s term) billions of dollars of losses were incurred, and used as tax write-offs, because the early profits didn’t really happen in the first place. So much for Hillary’s claim to have Bill lead the economy out of the doldrums.)
The Debt Bomb is made up of two parts. One part, we’ve been talking about is the combination of the US National debt created by profligate US government spending/borrowing combined with misguided policies that inhibit economic growth, income and revenue, The second part is actually a much bigger problem. Really.
This part of the Debt Bomb can only be undone by a lot of painful, unpleasant and downright disastrous undoing. In a word, “entitlements,” must be slashed, bashed and trashed. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pension plans (not just at the Federal government level, but at the state and local level) make up the far larger and longer lasting piece of the Debt Bomb.
Even worse, is that most public pension plans have been allowed to use totally unrealistic (optimistic) estimates for actuarial growth rates of their funds (7%+/-) instead of the more realistic true levels (3-4%). That lets them misstate how badly underfunded these plans are.
When all of the promises made for various kinds of benefits owed (remember, some 75 million American Baby-Boomers are still halfway through retiring at the rate of 10,000 per day) are totaled, the unfunded liability (an accounting term for money due) is (are you ready for this?) over ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS. You read that right: $100,000,000,000. That is FIVE TIMES AS MUCH AS THE US NATIONAL DEBT, and it is also FIVE times the US annual GDP. That doesn’t even include any projection for increasing life expectancy or inflation in costs.
How do you defuse that “debt bomb?” You don’t. The only choices are to cut it down to a reasonable size by reneging on the promises made to Americans over the past 50-75 years. Tell the retirees and near-retirees that the pension/benefit safety net their employer (including the government) promised them, simply isn’t there. As company pension plans began to fail, because they don’t have enough money to cover their unfunded liabilities, the government tried to come to the rescue.
The government formed and funded the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) to take over those plans and make the pension payments. The PBGC was a hoped for remedy to prevent companies and governments from dumping insolvent/underfunded plans, leaving retirees with nothing. There’s only one small problem. PBGC is running out of money too, and won’t have nearly enough—not even close—to fund some of the insane public employee union pension plans promised by unwitting state officials. For a quick recap of just one aspect of this problem, read this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9Okak .
Ugly, right? So what’s the bottom line behind the subtitle of this piece: “It really doesn’t matter.”
It doesn’t matter which person is elected president in November 2016, because the Debt Boom will still be looming. This economic “Grand Canyon” sized gap, is simply too big to fill.
But, it does matter a lot who gets elected if you are considering the next 15-30 years. The financial cataclysm—the Debt Bomb may not explode for more than 30 years. It’s called “kicking the can down the road.”
In that instance, then the choice for 2016 for president is NOT HILLARY CLINTON. Her policies and plans and those of her Democratic cohort will make the problems worse, faster. She (or worse yet would have been Bernie Sanders) will move up the date when the Debt Bomb explodes.
Donald Trump is no prize, but his policies will actually be more focused on private sector growth, which adds real wealth and income to the economy. That pushes out the date when the Debt Bomb blows up the US economy and sends everything into an unknown and unpredictable chaos. (Think Puerto Rico or Greece but many times larger and impossibly worse.)
Strangely, some of the Democrats, who are intelligent folks, still haven’t figured out that the Federal government actually creates no wealth at all. (Think Paul Krugman, et. al., for one example.) All the government can do is take a share of the money that passes through the US economy, levying taxes, duties, and fees out and confiscating the wealth created by the private sector—in a word, businesses and the American people.
Now, for those readers who want a glimmer of hope, here it is. Nobody can forecast much of anything 30-50 years into the future. Demographics, absent war or pestilence can project population growth, but even that is subject to assumptions about mortality rate and life expectancy. Economic forecasts, (like Climate-Change Models) are seldom right. Change a parameter or assumption of two and the outcome changes (often to whatever the forecaster wants it to be—remember Al Gore?)
The biggest events or breakthroughs that can defuse or overcome the Debt Bomb are almost unimaginable—but that they will be out there—is imaginable. The California Gold Rush, the Moon flights, the Great Depression, and the post WW-II economic boom each changed America’s economy and society enormously.
The good news: technology can change everything. Quite recently the decoding of the Human Genome was predicted to take years or decades, but now it is a rapid reality, opening entire new medical fields to gene manipulation. Nano-technology holds either immense potential or huge risk—or both. Climate change scientists have spent countless months arguing about whose models and conclusions are established science, but all become moot when a Mount St. Helens erupts, or Sunspots go wild. Moore’s law about the growing power of computing still endures.
Harnessing solar energy, like fracking, could totally alter the global economic landscape. So could desalination. Water, that ubiquitous substance, which makes up most of the Earth’s surface, and of which 75% is still underground within the Earth rocky core—is necessary for human life. But California is dying of drought.
What else can you think of that could cause tectonic changes in global economics, wealth creation and what if something that grows as fast as the Internet, portable cell phones, Facebook/Twitter use and the next embodiment of Moore’s Law comes along.
The Debt Bomb defies a solution using old (know) n approaches, but deciding which US President will take revolutionary new steps and “buy us a few more years” for that unknown event, technology or breakthrough to occur—that matters a lot.
So, you see, “It really doesn’t matter—until it does.” That’s why we cannot entrust the White House to Hillary Clinton who will push us further, faster toward the time when the Debt Bomb explodes. No matter how risky Donald Trump seems, he is America’s better choice to defuse the Debt Bomb.”
Jon Kofas.
(Retired Indiana University university professor. Academic Writing. International Political Economy – Fiction.)
“Will Americans Be Better off in 2020 than they were in 2016?
The Media Defines Election Issues
Will the majority of Americans be better off in 2020 than they were in 2016, and will they live in a more democratic society less oriented toward police-state methods at home and military solutions to political crises abroad? These are key questions that go beyond the obfuscation of distraction issues which the corporate media inculcates into peoples’ heads on a daily basis regarding what matters in elections. Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, by 2020 the small percentage of millionaires and billionaires will have amassed more wealth under a fiscal policy that transfers income from the bottom up. The mainstream media rarely addresses this issue because it identifies the ‘national interest’ with the wealthy elites.
For a large percentage of the working class and middle class, everything from housing to college education is not affordable amid a widening gap between the few billionaires who buy influence through campaign contributions and the masses whose living standards have been declining in the last four decades. Presidential/congressional elections have made no difference in improving living standards. On the contrary history of nearly half a century shows just the opposite, a key issue that the media ignores because its role is to co-opt the masses into the two major political parties.
The media has been working feverishly to convince citizens that democracy is equated with elections when in reality this is an illusion as Mark Twain pointed out during the Gilded Age. When George W. Bush was president, VIACOM, parent company of CBS, wanted more tax breaks and it made sure that its news coverage reflected favorably on the Republican administration, with only minor deviations. VIACOM realized like all other corporate media companies that unless it refrained from criticizing Bush’s foreign policy, it would not secure the tax breaks. Therefore, CBS news coverage was shaped not by the manner that the US conducted Middle East policy and the facts on the ground ranging from sweetheart contracts to corporations linked to the Vice President and defense contractors, but in accordance with VIACOM’s desire to reduce its tax bill.
Besides covering scandals and controversy of personal lives of the candidates and their top advisors, the media focuses on cultural and social issues that are important but have nothing to do with living standards. Largely because the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has openly employed racist, xenophobic and misogynist rhetoric, media focus on ethnicity, race and gender became core campaign issues to the deliberate neglect of larger all-inclusive social justice issues that concern all working class and middle class voters. Because the mainstream media identifies first and foremost with Wall Street of which it is a part as much as the presidential contenders and candidates on the ‘down ballot’ on both parties, it rarely covers socioeconomic inequality that has been growing since the Reagan presidency.
This is not to say that there are no differences between the Republican and Democrat candidates simply because the media chooses to focus on certain issues. However, the vast majority of the people know that the Democrat Party is not that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Keynesian New Deal reformist who modified the political economy during the Great Depression to accommodate the declining middle class and withering working class. The Democratic Party of Bill Clinton is neoliberal responsible for the massive concentration of capital and continued downward socioeconomic mobility in America.
People know that their lives and those of their children are not likely to experience upward social mobility regardless of the election outcome in November 2016. Although both political parties promise the moon, people know the American Dream is a remote possibility. For this reason a segment of the voters is angry and lined behind the self-proclaimed political Messiah Trump while others see salvation by the first woman president who represents Obama-style continuity if nothing else. Deep down, they know neither will do anything to change the prospect for the majority to achieve the elusive dream. Despite election enthusiasm for about half of the voters and apathy for the other half, according to public opinion polls, many know that the election will not result in any institutional change as was the case during the New Deal. The election outcome will make little difference if any in terms of slowing down the continued decline of the American middle class, as it will make little difference in the aggressive military-solution-oriented foreign policy that only adds hundreds of billions to the public debt. Nevertheless, there are those who are moved by political or religious ideology who see the election in terms of choice between good and evil.
Populist Republicans – social/cultural conservatives with an anti-globalism tendency – want Trump whose religious and spiritual orientation may not be any stronger than that of his secular humanist Democrat opponent, but who promises to deliver America into greatness away from the social/cultural evils of the Obama era; an era characterized by a perception that there has been greater support for gays, women, illegal immigrants, and minorities at the expense of angry white males mostly without a college education. There are those on the liberal camp who believe that a commitment to the superficialities of political correctness and advocating transgender bathroom use is somehow equated with the broader core issue of social justice that impacts the material lives of the vast majority.
The US will face major challenges not just in the next four years, but in the next decade largely because its public debt at $19 trillion in 2016 will likely increase much faster than GDP at just under $18 trillion, especially if Trump wins and carries out the massive tax cut to the wealthy and corporations. If the dollar was not a reserve currency and used as a means exchange in many commodities including global energy trade, its value would not be at current levels and Americans would not be enjoying living standards at current levels. Now that the Chinese currency is part of the reserve currency basket with the blessing of the IMF, the dollar’s decline is inevitable in the next growth cycle of the Chinese economy.
While many political, economic and social scientists are concerned about the impact of the global power shifts in the status of the US and its middle class living standards, they generally relegate blame for the inevitable downturn to:
1. China’s unfair competitive advantage in the world;
2. Russia’s Tsarist imperial designs on the regional balance of power;
3. The war on terror;
4. The entitlement programs and the cost of labor and its destabilizing impact on airlines, tourism, etc.;
5. The absence of a fiscal structure that transfers even greater income from the bottom 90% of the population and shifts it to the top 10% and within that group mostly to the top 1%.
Neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton is addressing the challenges facing the American middle class and workers with viable policy solutions because they are both committed to the ruinous neoliberal model of economic development. They both know that the global power shift will not change no matter which of them wins the election, living standards will not improve, and American decline is inevitable because both will pursue neoliberal policies combined with costly defense buildup that only adds to the public debt burden. While rhetoric about safeguarding the interests of the “nation” as top priority is at the core of the political campaigns, social justice is totally absent because America’s elites are not interested in it, as Senator Bernie Sanders repeatedly noted.
Well paid pundits with allegiance to one side or the other and the corporate media have helped to define the election agenda that centers around keeping the exact same global military structure and the domestic fiscal, mo and labor policies that account for what these same pundits label the “resentment election of 2016”. In short, there is no choice for the voters other than to cast a ballot to maintain the institutional structure that has been accountable for the decline of the American middle class since the early 1980s. One reason both candidates have unfavorable ratings around 60% and one reason that voters are looking to smaller parties or simply refusing to participate is because they know that elections do not make any difference in improving their lives or their children.
Symbolism of the Presidency and Party Platforms
Mark Twain’s quote “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it,” may sound like a clever one-liner from the Gilded Age, but it goes to the heart of the appearance of democracy as a system of popular sovereignty – will of the people and the social contract – behind which rests a small socioeconomic elite determining policy designed to maintain its privileged position in society. The ceremonial exercise of voting for candidates that the two political parties have nominated and which are committed to perpetuate an institutional structure serving the elites affords the illusion of freedom of choice when in fact the result is predetermined.
Contrary to liberal arguments that the great assault on democracy emanates solely from conservatives, corporate cash is and has been bipartisan when we follow the money trail. It is hardly a secret that the political economy shaping the social structure obviates voting as an effective means to secure a government responsive to the welfare of all people. Election results matter only on socio-cultural issues rather than socioeconomic ones. Symbolically, however, the occupant of the White House makes a difference because historically Americans view the person as ‘the leader of the Free World’.
Clinton Symbolism: There is no denying that the Clinton candidacy carries symbolism because she could become the first female president, just as there was great symbolism with Obama as the first black president. A closer look at the standard of living and unemployment among blacks combined with institutionalized racism as manifested in the criminal justice system and police shootings of black youth reveals that the Obama presidency made no difference except as a symbol of pride and precedent. Obama was just as neoliberal in his policies as his predecessor. Obama’s record of interventionism and military operations in the Middle East and North Africa was not as reckless as that of George W. Bush, but American covert and overt militarism in the Middle East and North Africa with continued operations in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan are hardly the promise of a pacifist president the world expected in 2008. Why would Clinton be much better in that respect, considering she was part of that administration?
Have women heads of state around the world made much institutional difference for women, minorities, and workers? There are those who feel that merely the symbolism is enough and they ask for nothing more. Trump makes the symbolism even more striking considering his chauvinist, xenophobic, misogynist and neo-Fascist tendencies both in rhetoric and style. Trump as a right-wing populist reflecting a segment of the American public from blue-collar white men to billionaires makes Clinton appear progressive when in fact she is far from it, as the primary season against Bernie Sanders and her record clearly prove. In essence, policy differences between the symbolic woman president and Trump the “would be political Messiah” will not be significant because the elites have common interests and always prevail. Besides, no matter the symbolism of the person in the Oval Office, the US has divided government with Congress exercising immense power over key issues.
Trump symbolism: This flamboyant egocentric billionaire with some underlying psychotic tendencies fits the theory of the political Messiah coming to the rescue of the masses. Reflecting a segment of society beyond the anti-political correctness angry white working class male, Trump is the carrier of the Republican Party’s populist wing that includes angry white men suffering downward pressure in living standards, evangelicals, Tea Party remnants, gun advocates, abortion opponents, economic nationalists, isolationists opposed to globalization, and above all who aspire to be billionaires like him and vote their aspirations instead of their interests.
This would be political Messiah promising to make America great again, going back to the right wing era of Reagan, the president who delivered the savings and loan crisis and Iran-Contra scandal, is ready to take power and lead like a fearless Barbarian warrior prepared for confrontation, instead of a politically-correct Democrat or Rockefeller Republican seeking consensus. How does he plan to do this considering Congress has such broad powers and the US is so thoroughly integrated into the world economy is a mystery. This is one reason that the symbolism he would bring to the White House sufficiently scares a number of banks and corporations that they argue his mere presence would precipitate instability that markets fear.
The symbolism of a Trump victory would encourage various white hate groups like White Lives Matter, Alt-Right, and many others that include prominent think tanks providing financing for some of these groups. This would mean that police forces across the country would be emboldened to shoot first at unarmed black youth and ask questions later, thus the police-state methods immersed in racism will intensify because the Justice Department would not be investigating as it has in some case under Obama. More broadly, the symbolism of a Trump presidency would be a triumph for chauvinism, xenophobia and a return to the good old days before the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
Trump Platform
1. Right wing populism – Ideologically, Trump allied himself with the populist wing of the Republican Party that has elements of racism, xenophobia, sexism, chauvinism and anti-pluralistic tendencies antithetical to a modern diverse and open society. This is as much a reflection of the ideological orientation guided by think tanks and media outlets funded by right wing billionaires as it is of the religious right continuing to assert itself as it has since the Reagan era. The popular base rejected Rockefeller Republicans like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and many others. Trump realized that the popular base had moved to the right, embracing social conservatism with elements of militarism, economic nationalism and isolationism combined with unilateral militarism. The symbolism of a bully billionaire riding like a cowboy ready to take on hostile Indians appeals to a segment of citizens who believe that projection of strength is a valuable trait in a president rather than intelligence articulated in polite political correctness.
2. Economic Nationalism – Build a wall along the US-Mexico border and force the Mexicans to pay for it has been the populist slogan that encapsulates Trump’s panacea for solving America’s economic and social problems. Even if the US could build a thousand walls along the border with Mexico and Canada, the inevitability of its economic decline is a certainty, along with the downward socioeconomic mobility of the waning middle class. A thousand border walls do not change the reality that Trump adamantly opposes raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour in the next five years, and revising the fiscal structure that has multinational corporations like General Electric paying no taxes and also receiving federal subsidies through the Export-Import Bank. Because Trump has to distract the Republican popular base from the real causes for their economic misery, he resorts to xenophobia that has deep roots in American history and it is currently a trend throughout the Western World.
While retaining a commitment to neoliberal policies and huge tax reductions for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, Trump would be willing to challenge companies interested in relocating abroad to remain at home or face punitive taxes – at least this was the rhetoric intended to secure more working class votes. Whereas Clinton is more open to globalization under neoliberal policies, he views integration as an impediment to national sovereignty and national capitalism.
The fiscal policy announcement he made officially intended to keep companies at home, but it would entail a massive rise in the US public debt, and at the same time it would transfer income from the bottom tiers of the taxpayer to the top five percent. Furthermore, it would then have serious implications in social programs, including public education and health care that would have to be cut to fund tax breaks to the rich and the defense budget and devoted to more corporate subsidies.
3. Militarism and Unilateralism – The proposals to strengthen defense, while pursuing greater unilateralism in foreign affairs and asking allies to pay more for their own defense is hardly new in the American political arena. Trump simply took advantage of the unpopular wars in Iraq and Pakistan/Afghanistan, which cost the US perhaps as much as $4.5 trillion once the Homeland Security component is added, to argue that America will not be paying for the defense of NATO and ASEAN allies that have the means to pay for their own defense. At the same time, his campaign has recklessly argued in favor of mass military campaigns to smash terrorism, as though it is a concentrated conventional force, ignoring that previous presidents made the same promises and delivered no results.
Regardless of the rhetoric, he would be highly unlikely to touch the military alliances of the US if elected to office because his advisors would convince him of the implications that includes losing the dominant voice in such alliances. Moreover, the US enjoys the privilege of recommending defense budget allocations for alliance members, although they do not always abide by Washington’s recommendations. Like Reagan administration Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger who argued in favor of the ‘nuclear option’ only to find himself castigated by NATO allies in 1982, Trump is deemed sufficiently arrogant and reckless to consider seriously the nuclear option. While he is not so psychotic as to be running around the White House asking people for the nuclear code, he could conceivably see the need for small tactical nuclear weapons against a rogue state like North Korea, which could in fact mean total war. This is an unlikely scenario, but who can afford to take that chance with an egomaniac?
Clinton Platform
1. Liberal on Social Issues/Conservative on economic and foreign policy –
The ideological orientation of modern day Democrats combines neoliberal policies in the domain of economics and elements of neo-conservatism in foreign affairs. Although there are those who have criticized Clinton for veering to the right on foreign policy, defense, and fiscal issues, she is within the mainstream of the Cold War-minded Democrat Party. Based on her platform, which had to be modified because of pressure from the Bernie Sanders wing of the party, Clinton is as mainstream neoliberal as her husband and Obama, both of whom employed liberal Democrat rhetoric but governed from the right, reflecting the interests of their powerful Wall Street donors.
Ideologically, Clinton will be a policy consensus builder in order to be effective but that is hardly a stretch because ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ may only differ with her on gun control, woman’s right to choose, immigration policy, race politics, modest judicial reform to address institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system, and privacy issues. While she is far less ideological in 2016 than she was in 1992 when she was first lady, she remains within Democrat Party perimeters of paying lip service to everything one would expect of a middle-of-the road liberal since the Kennedy administration. The diverse popular base of the party is pulling her to the left, but the hundreds of millions she has received from the elites are pulling her to the right from where she will govern if elected.
2. Neoliberalism and Globalization –
Clinton has not rejected globalization any more than neoliberalism that has accounted for the decline of the American middle class, and she does not go out of her way to sing its praises. To address the problem of globalization and neoliberal policies, she has proposed a policy mix that includes:
1. Spending $275 billion for infrastructural development over the next five years;
2. Eliminating college tuition for families making less than $125,000 a year for in-state students only;
3. Keeping Obamacare with some modifications;
4. Equal pay for women;
5. No new middle class income tax, but said nothing about indirect taxes and raise gradually the federal minimum wage that Republicans oppose as ‘too costly’ for businesses. She and Trump agree that ‘bad trade deals’ must not go through, but she is an advocate of globalization under neoliberal policies.
3. Militarism and Multilateralism –
There have been many analysts arguing that Clinton’s voting record as a senator and her policies as Secretary of State suggest she is as hawkish as many in the Republican camp. During the primary season, the New York Times ran an article about how she became hawkish. However, she was always a Cold War Democrat, but liberal on social issues – very typical of Johnson era Democrats. Unlike Trump who is a unilateralist militarist, she embraces multilateralism because she sees the benefits of alliance especially NATO, and understands that the US is hardly in a position to go at it alone in the age of Asian ascendancy. She also appreciates that multilateralism goes hand in hand with globalization. Neither Clinton nor Trump would do things very differently with the defense budget, and she is much more likely to be a military interventionist as her record indicates than he is, although he would be far less cautious in making foreign policy and defense policy decisions.
Trump or Clinton? Will it really matter to the vast majority by 2020?
If we follow the polling numbers throughout the summer of 2016, Clinton should win in November 2016. About two years ago, I wrote an article that Clinton could not win, but I was assuming she would be facing a conventional Republican not a populist TV personality. The best educated guess is that the race will be very close with Clinton winning by a slight margin. This assumes things remain more or less the same as they are currently with the entire corporate media behind Clinton, except for FOX, Breitbart and a few other extreme right wing outlets especially on radio.
Democrat party organization – machine politics – that she has behind her is about as corrupt as that of the Republicans, given how it conducted itself during the primary season against Sanders in a number of states. The combination of hundreds of millions of dollars from large donors and control of the party machinery is the key to winning elections, rather than popular sovereignty that afford citizens the illusion that they decide. This does not mean that a Trump win is out of reach. The segment of voters who dislike both candidates is rather substantial. They represent the frustration with the bankrupt American political economy that does not serve for the workers and middle class and the reality of the fading American Dream for their children.
Which candidate is more trustworthy and capable?
Clinton’s private email scandal especially involving the dreadful Benghazi affair but also the ‘pay for play’ Clinton Foundation donors while in the State Department ought to give sufficient pause to all citizens about her level of trustworthiness. When the pro-Clinton New York Times called for the Clinton Foundation to stop its activities of raising money from domestic and foreign sources, it was obvious that Clinton had a trustworthiness deficit even with a partisan news corporation. Political corruption is so layered with legal covers that she can never be indicted and because the Foundation is indeed involved in charitable work there is sufficient coverage for her to excuse her behavior. Not so when it comes to sensitive information while she was in the State Department using a private email account.
Trump is hardly free of corruption, considering clothing carrying his label is made in Asia that he criticizes for unfair trade practices and his companies have relied on undocumented workers as well as models without work visas which is against the law. Considering that the immigration issue has many facets, from fear of criminals and terrorists entering the country to cheap labor undermining the labor market, from xenophobia to seeking a scapegoat amid structural economic problems, Trump has been vehement about undocumented immigrants, an issue which raises the question of hypocrisy on his part given his practices. Yet, his ideologue followers are willing to overlook all of it and he was right that he would have to kill someone in broad daylight to lose support from the party base.
According to a public opinion polls, about 60% of people consider both Trump and Clinton untrustworthy. Only 11% consider Clinton trustworthy, while 16% feel the same about Trump. These are hardly inspiring figures and indicative that people are able to discern the difference between what these candidates preach and what they practice. Even so, if we consider that Jimmy Carter was an honest man and trustworthy even by his enemies’ estimation, experts relegate him to the category of a failed president because of Iran and the simultaneous energy crisis that impacted the US economy amid the Vietnam syndrome. Trustworthiness is a good trait but people expect politicians to break campaign promises and blatantly lie to secure and retain power by any means necessary within the law. What value does trustworthiness have for a politician who never promised to address the core issues of social justice in society, much less so for one who contributes to the absence of social justice as do Clinton and Trump?
Capability of a president comes down to the people appointed in various cabinets as well as policy advisors. If a president chooses ideologues whose goal is to serve the narrowest possible constituency within the defense establishment at a great cost to society then history will judge the president as less than capable. Clinton has the experience as first lady and secretary of state, but this does not mean that she will surround herself with people interested in the welfare of the majority of the people. After all, the people she has chosen to help elect her is made up of lobbyists beholden to corporations. Judged on the merits of advancing the neoliberal and Pax Americana agenda, Clinton would be capable because she will pay back the donors with policies that advance their interests. Judged on the criteria of social justice, she is hardly qualified for the position.
Clearly, Trump has no political experience because he never held political office, something that appeals to many in the Republican base who have accepted the corporate media propaganda that politicians are the sole cause of society’s problems while corporate America is the panacea. Trump’s concept of government as a corporation, a concept that became popular with neoliberals since Reagan, plays well with Wall Street and the media. A much more egocentric individual who publicly claims to know more about everything from foreign affairs to fiscal policy than mere mortals, Trump will most likely surround himself with Republican billionaires and ideologues on social, economic, and foreign policy issues. He will cultivate a cult of personality even more when he is in office and conduct himself as an imperial figure more than any president since Andrew Jackson. In this respect, his capabilities will manifest their limits when he runs into a brick wall in Congress, the UN, and dealing with international organizations like the IMF and foreign governments. On the other hand, he has admitted that he worked with the mob because he needed his construction projects completed, thus proving he can work with just about anyone from Putin to Xi Jinping.
Who will deal better with Putin and Xi Jinping?
In the post-Cold War era, the two dynamics in US policy toward Russia and China are not ideological but geopolitical and economic. Because there are so many US companies in China and because China is a major exporter to the US and buyer of US bonds to finance its balance of payments deficit, the relationship is determined by mutual interests. At the same time, China’s insistence on dominating the South China Sea despite opposition from the US and its Asian partners including Japan is a likely source of continued friction. Although US policy so far is that there is no military solution to China’s claims in the South China Sea, this could change with either Clinton or Trump in the White House. China’s ascendancy in the global power structure will force the US regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office into strategic and trade alliances with as many Asian countries as possible to minimize the influence of Beijing in Asia.
China and Russia expect continuity in US foreign policy if Clinton wins the presidency, but they know she will be more hawkish than her predecessor especially toward Russia. This means continuity of the strategic containment policy by strengthening NATO and ASEAN while pursuing economic engagement with China and squeezing Russia as hard as possible with sanctions over the Ukraine and Syrian conflicts that represent balance of power issues. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping know Clinton and they know what to expect from this conventional political leader, yet, they prefer Trump.
It is hardly a secret that both Beijing and Moscow want Trump in the White House because they assume it would be easier to deal with a businessman than a professional hawkish politician immersed in Cold War ideological assumptions about the contemporary world balance of power. Historically under Communist regimes, both the Russians and the Chinese believed that foreign relations ought to be conducted in a ‘business-like’ manner, something that Herbert Hoover popularized back in the 1920s. Moreover, the Chinese and Russian political leadership like the idea of Trump’s neo-isolationist foreign policy flirtations and his proposal regional conflicts.
Trump has decried China’s unfair competitiveness and both he and Clinton are against Obama’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (TPP). However, Trump is more like Putin and Xi Jinping than Clinton. She would press harder on human rights issues for example and domestic reforms that they regard as intervention in their domestic affairs and violation of their national sovereignty.
Who will help the economy and create more jobs?
Assuming Clinton pursues a campaign promise for infrastructural development that ought to provide some job stimulation along with her other promise for a federal minimum wage law intended to raise living standards for the poorest Americans. I would not look to her to do more in the area of jobs stimulus because she has taken hundreds of millions from Wall Street and her policies will not run counter to what corporations and banks demand. Besides, as soon as the stock market slumps a bit, the media immediately blames the White House and I doubt she will want four years of a war declared against her by the media.
Advocates of neoliberal policies believe that the private sector left to its own devices with considerable fiscal and subsidy incentives from the corporate welfare state creates jobs. They also believe in least possible regulation for the environment and worker safety. Above all, neoliberals want the least possible government protection of labor in every category from collective bargaining to impede their profit margins. The corporate welfare state will strengthen under either one while the social welfare state will remain about the same under Clinton and diminished under Trump.
Who will deal with ISIS and the Middle East more effectively?
Clinton will continue the Obama foreign policy of combining military solutions with diplomacy but only as a last resort. I expect no changes in the status quo with Iraq and Afghanistan, but some kind of resolution on Syria simply because Russia, backed by China and Iran will not yield on this piece of real estate. ISIS will be hunted down as it creates more enemies, but the policies of either Clinton or Trump are likely to further alienate Muslims and jihadist fanaticism will continue. Neither will try to solve the Israeli apartheid status quo in the Palestinian Territories, neither will pursue a balanced policy toward Israel and its neighbors, although Clinton is as beholden to the Gulf State billionaires as George W. Bush. Status quo of Obama will be Clinton’s policy, although new developments will determine possible policy changes.
Trump has employed bold militarist rhetoric to convince voters he will defeat ISIS through military campaigns, but also by partnering with Russia in a more collaborative fashion than Obama. On the other hand, Trump has alienated Muslims by proposing a values test and insultingly dismissing Muslims as undesirable immigrants. This is exactly the sort of rhetoric that encourages militant Muslims who assume that the US has a crusading foreign policy. His insulting language toward Muslims is as likely to alienate congressional Democrats and even Republicans as rapprochement with Russia to resolve some regional issues, including Ukraine and Syria.
Regardless of who wins the race for the White House, it is up to the US, EU and Middle East allies to consider if they want to preserve or weaken ISIS which they helped into regional prominence in the first place because of regime change policies in Syria. It is also up to them collectively to pursue policies that lessen jihadist activities among young people especially. Neither Clinton nor Trump alone can do much to reverse the broader policy of the US under the umbrella of ‘war on terror’ which strikes many Muslims as an indiscriminate war on 1.7 billion Muslims in the world.
Conclusions
The promise of politicians that they will restore the vanishing American Dream is in itself an acknowledgment that it is fading at the very least if not totally gone for most people as socioeconomic statistics indicate in any country whose middle class has been weakening since the late 1970s. Regardless of who is the new president and composition of congress, will the American Dream for all people be realized or are the politicians blatantly and knowingly lying to the voters and distracting them with issues ranging from terrorism to transgender bathroom facilities? There are millions who have accepted Republican Party nominee Donald Trump’s slogan “make America great again”, acknowledging that the country is not great in terms of middle class and working class living standards. Although this is a nebulous slogan as vacuous as much of the candidate’s inane and divisive political rhetoric, presumably it refers to America in the early Cold War when it enjoyed unrivaled global economic, political and military hegemony and the dollar was if only it spends more on defense and pursues economic nationalism. This utterly naïve slogan runs into the reality of a weak national economy thoroughly integrated into the global economy in which Asia is the new power center.
For the hard core backers of either candidate it is important to demonize the other and argue that instability at home and abroad is imminent with the election of ‘the wrong’ president. However, in a system of checks and balances and one where Wall Street prevails, it is highly doubtful that regardless of which one sits in the Oval Office immediate catastrophe would follow. In fact, even if we were to go back right before the 1890s when the US economy suffered a depression after 1892, or during the 1920s right before the 1929 crash and ask the business and political elites if they would change anything to avert a national crisis not one of them would opt for change that would undermine the profits and power of their privileged position. The situation is no different in the early 21st century when all signs point to a slow decline and eventual fall of America. Regardless of who sits in the White House and who is elected to Congress in 2016, all indications are that the US will be a much weaker country in 2020 largely because of its much larger public debt, weaker middle class and increased balance of payments deficit that would signal more problems ahead.”
Comments Off on Donald Trump Versus Hillary Clinton: Who wins? Who is better?
