Old Fucking Punk @lwriemen@librem.one

Corporate Democrats Have Been in the Driver’s Seat for 30 Years. Not Anymore.

For the past three decades, the Democratic Party has been living with a debilitating trauma that’s left it a shell of what it once was. But if Tuesday night’s debate is any indication, the Democrats may finally be moving into the home stretch of a long, painful recovery.

Rather than sticking to the longtime script of Democrats pandering to the center, the two highest polling candidates on the stage—Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—articulated a clear-eyed left-wing vision of the direction the party should take. Sanders railed against the “ruling class” while advocating enshrining universal economic rights, as Warren warned that “we’re not going to solve the urgent problems we face with small ideas and spinelessness.” Sanders agreed, claiming: “I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas.”

Ever since the Clinton years of the 1990s, the party’s officials and apparatchiks have internalized the belief that being too bold or too far left is a ticket to political oblivion. After enjoying a near-unbroken hold on the White House from 1932 to 1968, the following 24 years saw Democratic presidential nominee after nominee go down in landslides against ever more right-wing Republican opponents. Peace candidate George McGovern, who called for pulling troops out of Vietnam within 90 days in 1972, had been too far left to win, went the conventional wisdom. So had Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis in 1984 and 1988, respectively, conveniently ignoring the reality that both had campaigned as centrists pledging to cut the deficit and reform welfare.

This set of lessons, combined with Bill Clinton’s two presidential victories, led the party to an increasingly ruinous set of choices. Clinton’s “triangulation”—collaborating with Republicans to deregulate banks, cut social programs and empower large financial institutions—helped hollow out unions and working-class support for the party, while setting the stage for the 2008 financial crisis. The Democrats’ choice of safe “moderate” candidate John Kerry in 2004 saw a vulnerable George W. Bush return to the White House for another four years. And Barack Obama finished the job Clinton had begun, with his fear of appearing too radical or—heaven forbid—a “socialist,” leading to a less-than-aggressive response to the financial crisis, creating, in turn, a wipeout of black working-class wealth and a sluggish economic recovery that helped President Trump ride a wave of rage and apathy to the White House in 2016.

Paralyzed by caution, and its worst instincts justified through a gradual takeover by corporate interests, the Democratic Party has in many ways been its own worst enemy. Rather than proposing far-reaching redistributive policies, national Democrats have by and large moved to the right while pushing means-tested, tepid proposals meant not to offend corporate backers or scare off mythical “Reagan Democrats.” The result has been a party that’s failed to inspire its core constituency—working-class voters—to show up at the polls. Just look at the Obama years, during which the party lost over 1,000 seats nationwide.   

Yet Tuesday night’s battle between, on the side, Sanders and Warren—the two most progressive candidates in the field—and, on the other, the conservative Democrats misleadingly labeled “moderates” by much of the media suggest things may be finally changing.

The debate saw a conservative onslaught on the ideas and vision of the party’s surging left wing. Sanders and Warren—both tribunes for progressive energy during the Obama years—faced right-wing attacks and skepticism from not just their conservative opponents, but CNN’s panel of moderators as well.

Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney opened the debate by derisively referring to Sanders and Warren’s “bad policies” and “impossible promises” of Medicare for All and “free everything,” questioning why the Democrats were being “the party of taking something away from people,” in this case, private health insurance. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan suggested that Sanders’ Medicare for All bill would make things worse for union members. Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper stressed that incremental reform (“evolution, not revolution”) and giving Americans “choice” promised a better way forward. Moderator Jake Tapper demanded to know if Warren and Sanders planned on raising taxes for the middle class.

The two senators responded combatively, batting away the attacks in an often fiery fashion. “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,” an exasperated Warren told Delaney. “You’re wrong,” Sanders said, responding to Delaney’s charge that Medicare for All was “political suicide.”

Warren pointed out to Hickenlooper that incremental reforms had already been tried to no avail, and admonished the other candidates for “using Republican talking points.” Sanders leveled the same accusation at Tapper before charging that “the health care industry will be advertising tonight on this program … with that talking point,” a prediction that came at least partially true: PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying arm, was one of a number of pharmaceutical entities to air ads during subsequent commercial breaks.

And this was all during just the first half-hour. Healthcare reared its head again later in the debate once the conversation turned to immigration, with the moderators suggesting that Sanders’ plan to allow undocumented immigrants to access care under Medicare for All would encourage a deluge of migrants. A number of other questions implied that Sanders was too radical to beat Trump, or, as one put it, that he was indistinguishable from the far-right president because they both said they wanted to end wars. At one point, the moderators pushed the candidates to affirm they would maintain the United States’ first-use of nuclear weapons, a stance Warren bravely rejected, paralleling UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s own stance on the matter.

Perhaps most significantly, both Sanders and Warren tied signature policies like Medicare for All, a wealth tax, free tertiary education and student debt cancellation to their broader vision of political change, rebuking Democrats’ three-decade-long strategy of scurrying in fear at the sight of their own shadow. Warren thundered that the Democrats need to be the party “of big, structural change.” Sanders argued that "to win this election and to defeat Donald Trump … we need to have a campaign of energy and excitement and of vision. We need to bring millions of young people into the political process in a way that we have never seen.” For his part, Delaney fell back on the Democratic establishment’s classic warning that McGovern’s 1972 loss showed moving to the left was the electoral equivalent of drinking rat poison.

Meanwhile, Warren and Sanders’ criticisms of their conservative challengers were rooted in more than a kernel of truth. Sanders’ charge that Delaney, while opposing Medicare for All, “made money off of healthcare” wasn’t wrong. Besides being a conservative “New Democrat” who, while in the House, supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership and backed Obama’s entitlement-cutting Bowles-Simpson commission, Delaney was one of the richest members of Congress thanks to his career at the head of a company that lent money to the healthcare sector. As Sludge has reported, his latest financial disclosure, filed in 2019, shows Delaney has $3.2 million invested in the healthcare sector and funds with holdings in the industry.

The same goes for Warren’s suggestion that the candidates assailing Medicare for All lacked the “political will” to fight for it, which Hickenlooper emphatically denied. Yet in 2016, as governor of Colorado, he—along with fellow 2020 candidate, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet—opposed Amendment 69, a ballot measure that would have instituted a single-payer system in the state. At the time, Hickenlooper claimed that it was “premature” to reform the healthcare system. Behind closed doors, he told the Colorado Forum, an assembly of business leaders and political operatives that comprised one of Colorado’s most powerful lobbies, that a “couple large healthcare-related companies that are looking at moving their headquarters to Colorado” had “paused” when they learned about the measure.

While post-debate polling is still to come, it’s been clear that the unambitious, conservative approach championed by figures like Delaney and Hickenlooper is no longer welcome among the Democratic grassroots. Both candidates were booed at the California Democratic Convention this year for rebuking single-payer healthcare and socialism. In most polls, both candidates are ranking somewhere between 0 and 1 percent. Hickenlooper, whose campaign began hemorrhaging staff in early July, recently celebrated triumphantly when he hit a mere 2 percent, in one of this election’s most unintentionally hilarious tweets so far: “You did this. This campaign is gaining serious momentum and we’re just getting started.”

The Democratic Party’s recovery from their 30-year trauma isn’t over yet. After all, Joe Biden, one of the original neoliberal Democrats who abandoned the New Deal in the 1980s and is currently running a campaign based on attacking Medicare for All while being lavished with corporate money, is still the frontrunner.

But Warren and Sanders’ performance in Tuesday night’s debate, coupled with the crowd’s raucous cheers for their defiant retorts to the party’s withering conservative wing, hints that the healing process is well underway.

Dozens of press freedom groups denounce the threats against journalist Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept Brazil

In the past week, journalist Glenn Greenwald has been repeatedly threatened with jail time by right-wing Bralizian president Jair Bolsonaro. Multiple members of Brazil’s Congress have called for him to be arrested or his articles censored. Justice Minister Sergio Moro implied on Twitter Greenwald should be deported. Greenwald, his family, and his colleagues at The Intercept Brazil have also received countless death threats over the past six weeks.

All of these intimidation tactics stem from a series of important investigative articles published by The Intercept Brazil and other prominent Brazilian publications over the past month and a half. The stories have detailed confidential conversations then-judge Moro had with federal prosecutors that raise serious ethical and legal issues surrounding prominent corruption cases and the 2018 Brazilian election.

The only “crime” Greenwald and The Intercept Brazil have been accused of is the same type of action that countless news outlets around the world engage in every day: publishing news stories in the public interest, based on information from a confidential source.

Today, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and dozens of other international press freedom and human rights organizations have released an open letter forcefully condemning these threats and intimidation tactics, and are calling on the Brazilian government to protect the press freedom rights of all the reporters involved.

The letter states “the attempts to undermine and attack the credibility of The Intercept Brazil and its partners are viewed by the signatories of this appeal as a grave threat to the freedom to inform. Not only are they designed to deflect the public’s attention from the content of the revelations but above all, they reinforce an increasingly hostile work environment for the media and especially for investigative journalism.”

The letter goes on to state: “Freedom of the press and information are pillars of democracy. They transcend political divisions and must be protected and guaranteed at all costs.”

Greenwald is a founding board member of Freedom of the Press Foundation. We stand fully behind our friend and colleague and demand that the Brazilian government and its officials cease their dangerous threats to core press freedom rights that should be guaranteed to every journalist.

The full letter can be read below.

[embedded content] [embedded content]

Climate change alters tree demography in northern forests

The rise in temperature and precipitation levels in summer in northern Japan has negatively affected the growth of conifers and resulted in their gradual decline, according to a 38-year-long study in which mixed forests of conifers and broad-leaved trees were monitored.

Encapsulated Indian medicinal herb shows anti-diabetic properties in mice

Extracts of the herb Withania coagulans, or Paneer dodi, are used in traditional Indian medicine. Although some healers claim that W. coagulans can help treat diabetes, the bitter-tasting plant hasn't been studied extensively by scientists. Now, researchers have found that herbal extracts packaged in polymers derived from natural substances can reduce blood glucose levels in diabetic mice.

Trump Health Care Strategy: Pretend to Have a Plan

Apparently Donald Trump plans to take his usual sober and considered approach to health care policy during campaign season: White House advisers, scrambling to create a health-care agenda for President Trump to promote on the campaign trail, are meeting at least daily with the aim of rolling out a measure every two to three weeks […]

#UKMetOffice: #UK's 10 hottest years on record occurred since 2002 | UK news | The Guardian

The trend is becoming ever clearer.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/31/uks-10-hottest-years-on-record-have-occurred-since-2002-met-office

#GlobalWarming #ClimateChange #Environment

The Ghost of Racism Past

New tape reveals Ronald Reagan calling black people “those monkeys from those African countries”

Welcome Back to Matt’s Gardening Corner

This week: we are NOT talking about the state of digital media.

Keep Hustling: Four Cartoonists on Their Gig Economy Experiences

Is YOUR Democracy in Trouble?

Some warning signs.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders Dominate Democratic Debate Set Up to Ambush Them

The most progressive candidates on stage at the Democratic debate in Detroit, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, dominated an event framed like an ambush.

The post Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders Dominate Democratic Debate Set Up to Ambush Them appeared first on The Intercept.

Do the Rich Need Yet Another Tax Cut? I Say No.

Here is a letter sent to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. It is signed by 21 Republican senators: Sometimes the old songs are the best. Conservatives have been trying to enact a stealth cut in the capital gains via inflation indexing for as long as I can remember, but they’ve never been able to get it […]

Antioxidant compound from soybeans may prevent marijuana-induced blood vessel damage

Marijuana exposure damages cells of the inner lining of blood vessels throughout the heart and vascular system. In studies with human cells and arteries from mice, a compound found in soybeans blocked the damage and may have potential in preventing cardiovascular side effects of marijuana use.

Rural Hospitals Are Shutting Down in States That Didn’t Expand Medicaid

Hospitals in rural areas are losing money and sometimes closing down, taking away jobs and limiting health care options for some of the nation’s poorest citizens, according to a study published earlier this week by the Pittsburg Morning Sun and GateHouse Media. And the decision to reject a key part of Obamacare by Republican politicians in […]

Kamala Harris Receives Donations From Big Pharma Executives Despite Claim She Rejects Them

Campaign finance records show Harris has received thousands of dollars from executives at drug companies and distributors this year; most were not returned.

The post Kamala Harris Receives Donations From Big Pharma Executives Despite Claim She Rejects Them appeared first on The Intercept.

Biden, Buttigieg and Harris Rewarded by Industry for Waffling on Medicare for All

Nathan Whitmore, a researcher from The People’s Lobby’s Fair Elections Task Force, contributed research to this article. 

On July 30 and 31, the Democratic presidential hopefuls will face off in the second round of debates in this election cycle, and Medicare for All may once again be a theme of the night.

Support for single-payer Medicare for All, a program that would eliminate private health insurance by expanding Medicare to cover all Americans, has become something of a litmus test for the 2020 Democrats. Medicare for All is an incredibly popular position across the political spectrum. Many candidates, however, have attempted to stake out a position somewhere between opposing it and wholly endorsing it.

All 20 candidates at the June debates were asked to raise their hands if they supported a Medicare for All plan that would eliminate private health insurance. Only four of them did: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Bill de Blasio. The next day, Harris backtracked, claiming to have misunderstood the question. 

The candidates who kept their hands down rushed to explain and stipulate. Pete Buttigieg expressed his support for “Medicare for All who want it,” a plan which would allow Americans to buy into a program with, as he called it, the “flavor” of Medicare. Joe Biden echoed Buttigieg’s support for a public option that would include a “Medicare-like” plan. When Beto O’Rourke said that he, too, prefers a public option to a single-payer program, de Blasio cut in. “Why,” he demanded, “are you defending private insurance?”

It’s a question worth asking. Over half of Americans support single-payer healthcare—one poll even cites a 70% approval rating for Medicare for All. In 2018, a Gallup poll found that healthcare is among the most important issues for voters, a statistic that indicates widespread dissatisfaction with America’s current healthcare system. With demand for Medicare for All so high, Democratic hopefuls are loath to stick to the status quo on healthcare. So why are candidates, including several who co-sponsored Sanders’ Medicare for All bill in the Senate, hesitant to endorse true single-payer healthcare? Of course, there may be a factor besides personal conviction and constituent opinion: money. Several big-donor industries have a lot to lose from Medicare for All.

The health insurance and pharmaceutical industries spend large amounts to ensure political influence. During the 2016 election cycle, healthcare insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield shelled out over $25 million on lobbying and more than $9.6 million on political contributions (about $8.2 million from their PACs and other affiliated organizations, and $1.4 million from company employees). Pfizer, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, spent nearly $9.9 million on lobbying and $2.9 million on contributions ($1.98 million from PACs and organizations, and $892K from employees). For both companies, the top two recipients of political contributions were Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and House Speaker Paul Ryan’s congressional reelection.

Both industries have been central to the fight against Medicare for All. Last summer, health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and private hospitals teamed up to create the Partnership for America’s Healthcare Future (PAHCF), an organization dedicated almost entirely to killing Medicare for All. Over the past year, members of PAHCF have lobbied Congress members and spent thousands on online ads to reduce support for Medicare for All among voters and politicians. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the members of PAHCF spent a total of over $143 million on lobbying in 2018.

But it appears that even before PAHCF was founded, the health insurance industry was alarmed by the growing momentum of Medicare for All. In 2017, MapLight and Pacific Standardrevealed that Senators who opposed Sanders’ bill received, on average, double the amount of money from the health insurance industry as did those who supported the bill. 

Sanders seems to believe that healthcare industry money may be influencing his 2020 opponents as well. At the end of a speech on July 17th about Medicare For All, he pledged to reject all contributions over $200 from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries, and called on his opponents to do the same. His pledge encompasses donations from PACs, lobbyists, and high-ranking executives. The healthcare industry, he argued, has been “able to control the political process.” 

Earlier this month, OpenSecrets investigated which 2020 candidates received the most money from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. In These Times also teamed up with researchers from The People’s Lobby’sFair Elections Task Force, a community organization fighting for campaign finance reform in Chicago, to gather more specific data on individual contributions. For now, health insurance and pharmaceutical PACs have steered clear of the 2020 Democratic field, but many of the industry’s high-ranking employees have already begun to chip in. According to OpenSecrets’ research, the leading candidates who oppose eliminating private insurance have received larger contributions from health insurance and pharmaceutical executives than the candidates who fully support single-payer healthcare. 

OpenSecrets’ research shows that of the candidates polling in the top five (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg), Biden has received the most money from health insurance and pharma employees, and Sanders has received the least. At $97,453, Joe Biden accepted almost three times more money than Bernie Sanders ($36,728). Pete Buttigieg, a close runner-up, received $93,954. Harris took home around 1.5 times more money than Sanders, at $55,359. Warren accepted $43,680, less than 1.2 times more than Sanders.

Though she is not quite a leading candidate, polling between 1% and 2%, Amy Klobuchar notably accepted $65,304 from health insurance and pharmaceutical employees, making her the third-largest recipient overall (after Biden and Buttigieg). In These Times found that she received the maximum donation of $2,800 from Kara J. Walter, a UnitedHealth executive, and $1,000 from David Abelman, Executive VP of DentaQuest. Klobuchar is skeptical of Medicare for All, which in last month’s debate she claimed would kick “half of Americans off their health insurance.”

Kirsten Gillibrand is another favorite of the healthcare industry—at $39,546, she is the sixth-largest recipient of money from health insurance and pharma employees, above Sanders. Pfizer Executive Vice President Sally Susman, who donated the maximum $2,800 to her campaign according to In These Times’s research, hosted a fundraiser for Gillibrand earlier this year, which Gillibrand defended by claiming that Susman is “a friend” and that she “supports LGBTQ equality.” Perhaps Gillibrand’s relationship to the healthcare industry factored into her choice not to raise her hand in the June debates, and to argue instead that Medicare for All should not touch private insurance companies because competition will drive them out naturally.

It is no surprise that Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are the healthcare industry’s top picks. Biden recently denounced a potential switch to single-payer healthcare as “a sin,” and has made absurd claims that Medicare for All would mean existing Medicare “goes away as you know it.” According to In These Times’ research, his contributions include $2,800 from Independence Blue Cross CEO Daniel Hilferty, and $2,800 from Steven Collis, CEO of AmerisourceBergen. Buttigieg, meanwhile, has managed to appeal to both progressive Democrats and healthcare executives with his “Medicare for All Who Want It” proposal. In These Times found that his top donors include Wade Rakes, a Centene vice president who donated $4,300, and Joshua Smiley, CFO of Eli Lilly, who gave $2,800.

According to In These Times, Kamala Harris’s donations from high-ranking executives include $2,800 from Danielle C. Gray, Senior Vice President of Blue Cross NC, and $2,700 from Osi Esue, Marketing Director of Abbvie Pharmalytics. Like Buttigieg, she has attempted to play both sides of the debate around single-payer healthcare. On Monday, a month after walking back her support for eliminating private insurance at the June debates, she finally released a healthcare proposal dubiously titled “My Plan for Medicare for All.” Her plan would take ten years to phase in and would allow private insurance companies to compete with Medicare. “You can’t call this Medicare for All,” said Sanders’ campaign manager in a statement about Harris’s plan.

For his part, before Bernie Sanders announced his pledge to reject health insurance and pharma donations over $200, he accepted donations that would have broken it. For instance, In These Times found that he took at least $920 from Lynn McRoy, a medical director at Pfizer who may or may not count as a “high-ranking executive.” OpenSecrets also reported that he took home $2,000 from the CEO of Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Bernie’s campaign has announced that it will return all previously accepted donations that violate the new pledge. 

Like Sanders, Warren received a relatively small amount of money from the healthcare industry. In These Times found few high-ranking executives on her list of contributors, though she did accept some significant contributions, such as $1,010 from Robert Cuddihy, Amgen’s Vice President of U.S. Medical Affairs. Before the June debate, she was criticized for her silence on Medicare for All, but she has since come out in full support of single-payer healthcare, including for undocumented immigrants. 

While all but two of the leading 2020 Democrats equivocate on single-payer healthcare, organizers around the country continue to fight for Medicare for All and for the campaign finance reform that may be necessary to make progressive policies like single-payer a reality. For these organizers, contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries are more than just numbers. 

Morgan Oliver, an organizer from the Fair Elections Task Force, believes that without big money in politics, a universal healthcare system would be far more politically possible. “People’s constituents want that,” she added. “We see how many people have struggled with the health insurance industry in many different ways, even people in very conservative communities.” This struggle is personal for Oliver as well—she told In These Times that even with private insurance, she has struggled to afford a medication that she needs because it cost nearly $4,000.

Oliver is working to pass a Fair Elections Ordinance in Chicago that would create a donor match program for small individual contributions. She believes that fighting for campaign finance reform locally is a crucial step to winning it nationally. She envisions a federal public campaign financing law that would restrict big money in politics while boosting the power of small donations through vouchers or donor matching.  

Sheilah Garland, a political organizer with National Nurses United, which has long fought for Medical for All and endorsed Sanders in 2016, says that nurses around the country viscerally understand the necessity of divorcing healthcare from profit. She cited the Partnership for America’s Healthcare Future as a major obstacle in the union’s fight for single-payer healthcare, alongside general lobbying and contributions from health insurers and Big Pharma. 

Garland says her experience working with nurses has demonstrated the importance of eliminating private insurance through Medicare for All. Almost every nurse in the country, she says, has watched a patient struggle to access a life-saving treatment that isn’t covered by their insurance company’s policy. 

“When you’ve spent time with [a patient],” Garland said, “you know their story. You see them, you see their family, you see their struggle to regain their health … and to see all of that literally washed away because of some sort of policy … it’s absolutely devastating.”

The first kernel security update for Debian GNU/Linux 10 "Buster" is now available. The update addresses #security flaw CVE-2019-13272. The issue affects older versions of #Debian as well, so all users should update now. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2019-13272

A little over 24 hours left to pre-order the Librem 5 at the discounted price (and save $50).

https://shop.puri.sm/shop/librem-5/

Trump’s Pick for Top Intelligence Job Bragged of Experience as Terror Prosecutor — But He Doesn’t Have Any

Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe has long exaggerated his role in the Holy Land prosecution as a way of bolstering his national security bona fides.

The post Trump’s Pick for Top Intelligence Job Bragged of Experience as Terror Prosecutor — But He Doesn’t Have Any appeared first on The Intercept.