According to Mark F. Pomerantz, a former federal prosecutor that came out of retirement to work on the Trump investigation and then resigned last month, Trump is ‘guilty of numerous felony violations’. A copy of his resignation letter obtained by the New York Times read “The team that has investigated Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did” which is a direct criticism of the lack of further prosecution to date.
Anger over lack of prosecution now confirmed
Pomerantz submitted his resignation after Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg stopped pursuing an indictment of Donald Trump. He believed the former president was “guilty of numerous felony violations” as well as it being “a grave failure of justice” not to pursue charges.
In another great new video Robert Reich talks about the unspoken downsides of Abortion bans and why they are not “Pro-LIfe”. The video is one of many that can be seen on the Inequality Media YouTube channel – which adds at least a new video weekly.
Abortion bans are not pro-life. They’re pro-poverty and pro-inequality.
I’ll tell you what we can do about it in a moment. But first, let me explain how these bans worsen inequalities.
You’ve probably heard of the two abortion cases making their way through the courts. But it’s not just Texas and Mississippi’s new bans. For years, Republican state lawmakers – almost entirely white men – have been chipping away at reproductive freedom: enacting laws that lead to clinic closures, force people to travel hundreds of miles for abortions, and create near-insurmountable barriers for low-income people, especially people of color.
Make no mistake: bans like those in Texas and Mississippi won’t stop abortions. Wealthy people will always have access, but millions of low-income people will be forced to give birth – with dire consequences for both parent and child.
Pregnant people in Texas now have to travel an average of 247 miles to get an abortion. Who but the wealthy can afford this? Only one third of the lowest paid workers receive paid sick days, while 95% of the highest paid do. Taking just one unpaid day off from a low-wage job can mean sacrificing groceries, electricity, or gas.
These restrictions worsen inequality, and have lifelong effects.
One study found that being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term makes it nearly 4 times more likely that parent and child will live below the poverty line. They’re also less likely to have full-time work, and more likely to have public assistance four years later. Decades of research confirm that abortion access improves education, employment, and earnings — and the differences are especially large for Black people.
It’s not just economics. Restricting abortion puts people’s health at risk. Researchers found that abortion legalization in the 1970s reduced deaths among Black mothers by 30 to 40 percent.
The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority is poised to gut or even overturn Roe v. Wade. If they do, 21 states already have laws that will go into effect to severely restrict or outright ban all abortions immediately – threatening the livelihoods and health of millions of low-income Americans.
Congress must codify Roe v. Wade into federal law — now — by passing the Women’s Health Protection Act. It’s already been passed in the House but is being blocked in the Senate by – you guessed it – a Republican filibuster.
Let’s be clear: there is nothing “pro-life” about forced pregnancy and forced birth. The freedom to choose when, how, and with whom you start a family should not be dictated by your income or where you live. Congress must act to protect reproductive now, freedom before it’s too late.
“With everything going on in the world right now, the dual polar climate disasters of 2022 should be the top story”
Scientists expressed shock and alarm this weekend amid extreme high temperatures near both of the Earth’s poles—the latest signs of the accelerating planetary climate emergency.
“This event is completely unprecedented and upended our expectations about the Antarctic climate system.”
Temperatures in parts of Antarctica were 50°F-90°F above normal in recent days, while earlier this week the mercury soared to over 50°F higher than average—close to the freezing mark—in areas of the Arctic.
Stefano Di Battista, an Antarctic climatologist, tweeted that such record-shattering heat near the South Pole was“unthinkable” and “impossible.”
“Antarctic climatology has been rewritten,” di Battista wrote.
The joint French-Italian Concordia research station in eastern Antarctica recorded an all-time high of 10°F on Friday. In contrast, high temperatures at the station this time in March average below -50°F.
Record heat in the Arctic is driving an early melt season and crushing 2022 sea-ice extent: current rank now #4. The Antarctic is even worse.
With everything going on in the world right now, the dual polar climate disasters of 2022 should be the top story. pic.twitter.com/qsi4OAob6L
Jonathan Wille, a researcher studying polar meteorology at Université Grenoble Alpes in France, toldThe Washington Post that “this event is completely unprecedented and upended our expectations about the Antarctic climate system.”
“This is when temperatures should be rapidly falling since the summer solstice in December,” Wille tweeted. “This is a Pacific Northwest 2021 heatwave kind of event,” he added, referring to the record-breaking event in which parts of Canada topped 120°F for the first time in recorded history. “Never supposed to happen.”
Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, toldUSA Today that “you don’t see the North and the South [poles] both melting at the same time” because “they are opposite seasons.”
“It’s definitely an unusual occurrence,” he added.
50 degrees above normal in the North Pole this week, and 50 to 90 degrees above normal in Antarctica. Good lord. https://t.co/bSrodCJdei
As Common Dreams has reported, the Arctic has been warming three times faster than the world as a whole, accelerating polar ice melt, ocean warming, and other manifestations of the climate emergency.
“Looking back over the last few decades, we can clearly see a trend in warming, particularly in the ‘cold season’ in the Arctic,” Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist with the Danish Meteorological Institute, told the Post. “It’s not surprising that warm air is busting through into the Arctic this year. In general, we expect to see more and more of these events in the future.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by BRETT WILKINS and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
“Instead of hitting the brakes on the decarbonization of the global economy” amid Russia’s war on Ukraine, “now is the time to put the pedal to the metal towards a renewable energy future,” said United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.
“The 1.5-degree goal is on life support. It is in intensive care.”
So said United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday, as he stressed that a swift and just transition to clean energy is necessary to meet the Paris agreement’s objective of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels—and warned against using Russia’s deadly assault on Ukraine as an excuse to ramp up fossil fuel production worldwide.
“We are sleepwalking to climate catastrophe.”
“The science is clear. So is the math,” the U.N. leader said during a speech delivered at a Sustainability Summit hosted by The Economist. “Keeping 1.5 alive requires a 45% reduction in global emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by mid-century.” And yet, “according to present national commitments, global emissions are set to increase by almost 14% in the 2020s.”
“We are sleepwalking to climate catastrophe,” Guterres continued. “Our planet has already warmed by as much as 1.2 degrees—and we see the devastating consequences everywhere. In 2020, climate disasters forced 30 million people to flee their homes—three times more than those displaced by war and violence.”
Just this past weekend, scientists conveyed shock and alarm in response to reports that temperatures at both of Earth’s poles reached more than 50°F above average last week. Peer-reviewed research published on Friday foundthat increasingly frequent and intense wildfires around the globe are exacerbating Arctic warming, which is worsening the conditions that make future blazes more likely.
“Two weeks ago,” said Guterres, citing part two of the U.N.’s landmark climate assessment, “the IPCC confirmed that half of humanity is already living in the danger zone. Small island nations, least developed countries, and poor and vulnerable people everywhere are one climate shock away from doomsday. In our globally connected world, no country and no corporation can insulate itself from these levels of chaos.”
“If we continue with more of the same, we can kiss 1.5 goodbye,” he added. “Even 2 degrees may be out of reach. And that would be catastrophe.”
Making matters worse, said Guterres, “the fallout from Russia’s war in Ukraine risks upending global food and energy markets—with major implications for the global climate agenda.”
“As major economies pursue an ‘all-of-the-above’ strategy to replace Russian fossil fuels, short-term measures might create long-term fossil fuel dependence.”
The United States, United Kingdom, and European Union have moved to restrict imports of Russian fossil fuels in response to Moscow’s military offensive. Although progressives have emphasized that the ongoing invasion should lead to an intensification of efforts to move awayfrom dirty energy, profit-hungry proponents of oil, gas, and coal have seized on surging prices to push for boosting extraction and exports.
Guterres warned that “as major economies pursue an ‘all-of-the-above’ strategy to replace Russian fossil fuels, short-term measures might create long-term fossil fuel dependence and close the window to 1.5 degrees.”
“Countries could become so consumed by the immediate fossil fuel supply gap that they neglect or knee-cap policies to cut fossil fuel use,” he said. “This is madness. Addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction.”
“As current events make all too clear, our continued reliance on fossil fuels puts the global economy and energy security at the mercy of geopolitical shocks and crises,” added Guterres. “We need to fix the broken global energy mix.”
Noting that “the timeline to cut emissions by 45% is extremely tight,” the U.N. leader stressed that “instead of hitting the brakes on the decarbonization of the global economy, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal towards a renewable energy future.”
His remarks came just hours before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) kicked off a two-week meeting to validate part three of its report, which focuses on the need to drastically slash carbon pollution to avoid the most disastrous outcomes.
Guterres argued that cooperation between the developed and emerging economies of the G20—responsible for 80% of global emissions—is essential to addressing the planetary emergency.
“Accelerating the phase-out of coal and all fossil fuels and implementing a rapid, just, and sustainable energy transition,” he said, is “the only true pathway to energy security.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by KENNY STANCIL and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
Some democracies fall apart because of invasion by a neighbor, terrorism, or a natural disaster, but most are taken down by their own own greedy oligarchs.
Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / CC
It’s important now, in light of both world events and the way the Republican party has been captured by a small group of rightwing billionaires and white supremacists, to introduce Americans to an 18th century word that is new to most people alive today, at least in the context of partisan politics.
That word is: faction.
The crises caused by faction were a big deal at the founding of our republic. Faction was a matter of conversation among average people.
Prior to Reagan’s deregulation and tax-cutting binge, America didn’t have a single billionaire and the average income of American CEOs—restrained as they were by a top income tax rate of 74 percent—was only around 30 times that of the average worker.
It was the same when the South was seized by an oligarchic faction of plantation owners and turned from a whites-only democracy into a neofascist oligarchy in the 1840s and 1850s.
Factions are destroyers of democracies.
It was a faction of oligarchs led by Vladimir Putin that took over Russia after that country adopted Milton Friedman’s neoliberal policies of privatization, low taxes, and deregulation, producing an explosion of billionaires who weakened the new Russian democracy by pouring outsized chunks of their money into Russia’s politics.
Russian President Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine was caused by a deficiency of democracy in Russia; whenever a country is taken over by a single person or a small group of people, such terrible decisions are inevitable. History is littered with them.
And it all starts with a faction of wealthy people corrupting politics.
Faction always leads to the “doom loop” of democracy, which is why Aristotle warned about faction as much as does Bernie Sanders. It happens pretty much the same way all over the world, all across the centuries.
Here in America, it’s something the Founding generation, Lincoln’s generation, and FDR’s generation each had to deal with. FDR called the faction of his day the “Economic Royalists.”
Today, we’re again facing the doom loop caused by what the Founders called faction.
The faction-caused Doom Loop goes like this:
Government makes the rules that regulate taxes and corporations, and uses those rules to prevent wealthy people or businesses from corrupting the government itself.
These “guardrails of democracy” include taxation that’s high enough that oligarchy doesn’t emerge, along with tight regulation of money in politics.
Those corporations and individuals who mostly own/control the marketplace want to “throw off the shackles of government.”
So they get together and pour money into the political process, essentially buying all the politicians and judges they need.
Then their wholly-owned legislators and judges remove laws or change their interpretation to weaken or even eliminate those guardrails of taxation and regulation that protect democracy.
Removing the taxation and regulation guardrails increases the profits of the corporations and the wealth of the morbidly rich oligarchs.
They then recycle a small portion of that “new” money back to the politicians to either maintain the status quo or deteriorate the guardrails even further.
Eventually the guardrails become so weak that the government’s ability to control the excesses of the faction breaks down and the oligarchs take over, transitioning the democracy into oligarchy.
Oligarchic government then, typically within a decade or so, turns into a strongman autocracy, as we see with today’s Russia and almost saw with Trump’s presidency.
This analysis is not, by the way, a radical position or one do you need a college degree to understand.
President Jimmy Carter explained it to me on the radio seven years ago, and any reading of history finds it scattered through the accounts of the Revolutionary, Civil War, and New Deal eras.
And with a billionaire in the White House for four years, with several billionaires in his cabinet, signing billionaire-friendly executive orders and corruptly devastating the EPA, IRS, and several other federal agencies, we approached the brink.
To put it in straightforward terms:
Powerful rich people motivated primarily by a desire to increase their own wealth and power—when they act together as a faction to accomplish that goal, like Lewis Powell suggested to America’s business leaders and wealthiest men in 1971—will always try to change a democracy into an oligarchy.
Investing in politicians and think-tanks, it turns out, is the single most effective investment a faction of oligarchs can make in a republic once its guardrails are sufficiently weakened to allow it to happen on a large scale.
Consider how, prior to Reagan’s deregulation and tax-cutting binge, America didn’t have a single billionaire and the average income of American CEOs—restrained as they were by a top income tax rate of 74 percent—was only around 30 times that of the average worker.
Congress routinely passed laws that were widely popular, like Medicare and the Voting Rights Act, because back then politicians were more responsive to the people than to the morbidly rich.
Today, after Reagan’s massive tax cuts and deregulation efforts, we have hundreds of billionaires, and CEO pay in some industries runs a thousand times that of their workers. And legislation with approval rates as high as 80 percent—like funding education and healthcare—are blocked in the Senate.
Democracies were growing and strengthening around the world from the time of the American Civil War until the 1980s. But, around that time, country after country began to consider Reagan/Thatcher style neoliberalism.
Some countries, like China, explicitly rejected neoliberalism and trickle down economics, and instead adopted Alexander Hamilton’s “American Plan.” As a result, their economies and their middle-classes grew. China’s middle class today, for example, is larger than the population of the entire United States.
But far too many others, encouraged by their elites, took the plunge and drastically cut taxes on the morbidly rich, cut business oversight and regulation, and loosened their laws regulating money in politics.
By 2005, as Reagan’s neoliberalism spread around the world, countries that were losing their middle classes (like America has over the last 40 years) began to flip into oligarchies and then autocracies.
Democracies around the world began to backslide.
Like the USA, country after country has followed Reaganism/neoliberalism to set aside limits on corporate and oligarch participation in politics, with predictable results. As Freedom House noted in their most recent annual report:
“The present threat to democracy is the product of 16 consecutive years of decline in global freedom. A total of 60 countries suffered declines over the past year, while only 25 improved.”
America, they note, is one of the countries in a “decline” of democracy.
While a few of those democracies in decline fell apart because of invasion by a neighbor, terrorism, or a natural disaster, most are being taken down by their own internal factions, typically the nation’s own oligarchs.
In 1776 the United States was the first major experiment in democracy in the past several thousand years and, although it was badly flawed by both slavery and a lack of rights for women, the idea of even the minority of white men deciding the future of their country was a revolutionary departure from thousands of years of kings, popes and brutal warlords.
The era of the Enlightenment, particularly throughout the 1700s, brought vigorous discussions of whether democracy was even possible, or if it would always be doomed to collapse back into oligarchy and autocracy.
The recurrent concern of the people of that era was that wealthy factions would arise and corrupt any democracy back into something resembling a kingdom with wealthy lords and autocratic rulers.
As Lord Bolingbroke wrote in his Memoirs, published in 1752 (the year after Bolingbroke died and James Madison—who would later midwife our Constitution—was born):
“A Party then is, as I take it, a set of men connected together … pretending to have the same private opinion with respect to public concerns; … but when it proceeds further, and influences men’s conduct in any considerable degree, it becomes Faction.”
And what are factions that have seized control of political parties almost always all about? Bolingbroke laid it out with a clarity that still resonates today:
“In all such cases there are revealed reasons, and a reserved Motive. By revealed reasons, I mean a set of plausible doctrines, which may be styled [called] the creed of the party; but the reserved motive belongs to Faction only, and is the THIRST OF POWER. [emphasis Bolingbroke’s]
When greedy people rise up as a faction to try to seize a government, Bolingbroke wrote, they always claim to be acting in the best interests of the people.
Consider today’s Republican Party, backed by billionaires and openly opposed to union rights while reaching out to blue-collar voters, as you read Bolingbroke’s words:
“The creeds of parties vary like those of sects; but all Factions have the same motive, which never implies more or less than a lust of dominion, though they … generally are covered with the specious pretenses of … zeal for the public, which flows, in fact, from Avarice, Self-Interest, Resentment and other private views.”
Bolingbroke was widely read among the Founding generation, and Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” echoed his sentiments in Federalist 10, in which he warns us of the dangers of faction.
First, he defines the term “faction,” to separate it from the notion of just being a political party or a special interest group:
“By a faction,” Madison writes in Federalist 10, “I understand a number of citizens … who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse [opposed] to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” [emphasis mine]
In other words, factions aren’t political parties or advocates for the public good. They are, pure and simple, politically active wealthy people opposed to the public good and thus a poison in the bloodstream of a democracy.
Madison devotes the entirety of Federalist 10 to warning both his colleagues and future generations of Americans against them. Controlling faction, he wrote, was the most important function of the Constitution:
“To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.”
Even the most famous British historian of that era, author of The History of England David Hume, wrote in his essay Of Parties in General (1741) about the dangers of wealthy people getting together to form a faction that could take over and corrupt a government, all to increase their own profits and wealth:
“As much as legislators and founders of states ought to be honoured and respected among men, as much ought the founders of sects and factions to be detested and hated; because the influence of faction is directly contrary to that of laws.”
By “contrary to that of laws,” Hume meant that a faction—a group of wealthy and powerful people—would do everything they could to corrupt the political process and weaken or destroy laws that might restrain their greed:
“Factions subvert government, render laws impotent, and beget the fiercest animosities among men of the same nation, who ought to give mutual assistance and protection to each other.”
Hume, being a conservative of that era, was skeptical that any democracy could ever survive the assault of political parties that had been taken over by factions of the rich:
“And what should render the founders of parties more odious is, the difficulty of extirpating these weeds, when once they have taken root in any state. They naturally propagate themselves for many centuries, and seldom end but by the total dissolution of that government, in which they are sown.”
And, wrote Hume, once they’ve taken over a “free” government, they’re even harder to get rid of than weeds. Eventually, if not stopped, they’ll consume the only thing that could restrain them, the government itself:
“They are, besides, plants which grow most plentifully in the richest soil; and … they rise more easily, and propagate themselves faster in free governments, where they always infect the legislature itself, which alone could be able, by the steady application of rewards and punishments, to eradicate them.”
As President Jimmy Carter told me seven years ago when we were discussing the Supreme Court’s corrupt Citizens United decision:
“It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. … So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”
We’re quite far down the road to wealthy factions so corrupting our government that it has ceased to operate as a functioning republican democracy.
Our best hope for stopping a further slide into oligarchy and ultimately strongman autocracy is to pass legislation that will regulate money in politics.
Tragically, every Republican in the US Senate except Lisa Murkowski voted against strengthening our voting rights and removing some of the power of money in politics.
Hopefully such legislation can be revived this year, although with both Manchin and Sinema now openly taking money from the same billionaire faction that funds the GOP, it’s going to be a hell of a lift.
Nonetheless, reversing the core of Reaganism’s oligarchic agenda is the only way to stop the ongoing faction-driven collapse of American democracy. If we are to break out of the doom loop of democracies that consumed Russia 20 years ago, we must:
Regulate great wealth by raising personal and corporate taxes back to where they were before Reagan.
Restore the hundreds of good-government-protecting regulations on money in politics Congress passed and were signed into law by Presidents Ford and Carter (and in almost every state legislature) but overturned in 2010 by the Supreme Court in their corrupt 5:4 Citizens United decision.
We must continue to work and speak out against faction and do everything we can to make America “a more perfect union.” Otherwise, our nation will be consumed by what Bolingbroke called the “THIRST of POWER.”
This article was first published on The Hartmann Report and published on Common Dreams and republished under Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
Not a problem but an opportunity to get ahead of the trend
In episode 3 of season 21 of ‘Law and Order’, aired last week, an attempt at a joke was made. It was only half-a-chuckle worth of humor and mildly outdated. The upshot was that anyone under 30 is a wannabe social media influencer and anyone over 30 hates social media and influencers.
This is true only in the sense that there is a perception that the new and ubiquitous side-hustle is to selfie-video yourself into a million followers on TikTok mindset is exploding, which it is.
And that it’s happening concurrent with the post-pandemic rejection of traditional employment. The logic being that to start a YouTube channel (TikTok etc) and get a life as a creator that is worth more ( albeit with well known downsides) than a 9 to 5.
Once again there’s a disconnect between Apple with its finger on the pulse of society and high tech appetites, and the ‘media’, ever stuck in an imaginary war between ‘consumers’ and ‘pros’.
So what is “Pro” in a world where everyone wants to produce pro content?
A, now funny, bunch articles published on the eve of Apple’s recent hardware reveal event on March 8th, detailed exactly why there would definitely not be a release of an upgraded ‘mac-mini style’ workstation. The general idea was that the consumer market is bigger and more important and, therefore, Apple would be smart ad postpone the ‘less important’ pro products.
Of course, that turned out to be wrong and the highlight of the event was the release of what’s now called the Mac Studio, including the double stacked mac-mini-styled knock off of the insanely expensive Mac Pro and the partner Studio Display. Many of those articles have been deleted, likely due to the embarrassment of being 100% dead opposite of what transpired.
Next Mitchell Clark , in The Verge, writes that Apple has a “Pro Problem” and is somehow lost in its branding. Apparently, according to the post, Apple is too quick on the trigger to brand something Pro and will have no choice but to start a new, presumably, semi-pro line up using the the new ‘Studio’ moniker.
While this has, in a sense, um, already happened, it is a sign of something entirely different and much more meaningful that is being either willfully ignored or lost in the forest for the trees.
To be fair, the article is, ultimately taking a positive spin on this, positing that changing all “pro” products to the tag “studio” would be smart and that the term “pro” is too restrictive.
What this side-steps is the reality of what the entire Pro-plus-Studio product category is all about. The idea that anyone that uses Apple desktop or MacBook Pro gear for digital content creation would also own an iPhone and possible an iPad is now a given.
What’s new is the huge strides that Apple is making on a daily basis in the ability for all Apple products to add value to all other Apple products. This is a complex transition that literally began at the inception of each product line and will reach a peak of interoperability in around March of 2024 (prediction).
And the Pro lineup, whatever it will be called at that time is, and will continue to be, at the forefront of that transition and insanely great transformation.
Always cheering makes for a dull story
As an aside, it is a well known media technique to couch an Apple ‘puff piece’ in the guise of a takedown. It makes sense, if you endlessly gush on the genius of Apple’s strategy and products, you come across like a fan-boy-ass-kisser and worse, like a shill trying to make bank on Apple just by applauding anything that comes down the pike.
The truth is that this anti-but-really-pro thing works.
The premise of this article, that Apple knows exactly what it’s doing and that there is a monumental shift taking place in society where the meaning of ‘Pro’ is not getting muddied by Apple, but rather, expanding and morphing into something new and huge, is less sexy than just saying, Apple’s lost and they muffed it, dude.
With or without Apple, the meaning of ‘Pro’ is changing, by the minute
The imaginary line that exists between a Pro user and a consumer is blurring. And, according to the verge article, it’s Apple’s fault by designating its high end Phones as Pro and Pro Max, while at the same time also ‘real’ pro gear like the Mac Pro and the Pro Display XDR.
What is really happening is that there is a rapidly growing demographic that needs the kind of computational prowess that was once insanely expensive, but at a semi-pro price.
If you are an influencer or a wannabe (supposedly this is ‘everyone under 30’, right?) and you are getting by on skimpy iPhone apps but want to get into software like Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro and so on, but need the power to produce in a hurry, what are your options?
Until the new Mac Studio Lineup those options were very pricy. Very. But now imagine a world where you could have an iPhone 13 Pro or Pro Max, a Mac Studio set up and, if you get a few sponsors or subscribers, a MacBook Pro with M1 Max for the road.
By all accounts you now have a full production ensemble with the power (more powerful than Mac Pro is already the headline) to do what would have had a price of tens of thousands of dollars, closer to 20k, just a year ago.
Now it’s only slightly more than what the non-pro cost in 2021.
The tail wags the dog or does it?
The real, and obviously more complex reality, is that Apple is both leading and following the real demographics in the Pro revolution that is already afoot.
The shift from influencers using glamorous instagram photos of lavish lifestyles (fake or not) to get status has changed into video driven authenticity and art leading the way and this trend is already impacting everything.
Facebook has a TikTok account now. Instagram has shifted to video first and is trying to escape photos altogether, the ‘creativity’ element in being a content creator is off the charts and getting more competitive by the second. NFTs are still not dead and being added as a thing to mainstream apps and platforms.
So, no, Apple does not have a “Pro Problem” they are trying to tailor the solution to the market. And the solution is more pro users than ever (what used to be called ‘pro-sumer’ in a now archaic and ridiculous sounding phrase) are getting more powerful tools and at a lower than ever cost.
Sorry not to be able to do a faux Apple take-down on this time. Does Apple make mistakes? Hell yes. Just this time it is the biggest non-mistake ever, and it wold be incredulous or worse to say otherwise. Glory to the Mac Studio and ‘Pro” users everywhere.
Burning down a straw man before it’s built is a charade and a sham that predictably looks for dreams to kill, just take a peek at various articles predicting the end of web3 before it starts.
Recently there’s been a series of dust-ups and take-down attempts gunning for web3, crypto and anything decentralized or connected to buzz words like, DAOs, Defi, etc.
As logically sound as these diatribes may appear, in every case there’s a fatal flaw that’s oddly never mentioned: that at its essence web3 is a desire, an aspiration and, above all, a proposed remedy to what’s wrong with all that is, internet-wise in the present day.
Maybe it’s because the current wave of developers and venture capitalists that are at the forefront of, supposedly, building a new web, are basing the entire enterprise on a build-it-and-they-will-come mentality.
But will they come? In the end it is the crowds that make the concert. Even something as terrible and flawed as Facebook couldn’t be stopped because the crowds, both fake and, later, real-ish, did come.
Regardless of the theoretical merits of an idea or movement, if the masses do not cooperate in creating critical mass for the idea, there will be no coming out party, ever.
This is the true hope that lies beneath. The dream that dare not speak its name is not based on logic, or realistic viability, it is based on a desire that can’t be stopped, a need that does not just die out because of flawed models of centralized, decentralized or any other wannabe structure of interaction.
Web2 is dying before our eyes. Something will replace it. The rumblings from beneath in a Chinese music app named after the sound a clock makes and even from this very medium are that peer to peer power is what will drive web3 into whatever it will become.
Decentralized? The fight over defining web3 is lost in space
Peer to peer power does not rise from the barrel of a gun or even from the blockchain. It comes from the rejection of hierarchical structures that strangle creativity, and more importantly, that have no place for broadly distributed communication and prosperity to flourish.
The zero-sum mindset that Elon Musk calls wrong and that leads to “morally questionable” acts is not built to last and the top-down economics of 1 Zuckerberg per each billion users is dead and dying fast.
Can there be a Robin hood Parable 3.0: steal from nobody and give to everybody?
The infinite pie theory is the only one that fits and, according to Musk, it’s about the mindset, and adopting it all the way can take you all the way to the promised land.
The TikTok army of souls knows this and will only respond to a sustainable vision of renumeration that is, if not decentralized, at the very least widely distributed, peer-to-peer and devoid of outdated vertical top-heavy crap systems and platforms that do not work for the individual at a broad based level.
The Sun is always shining, even at night
If a “small section of southeastern Utah” can power the energy needs of the entire USA via solar, at a minimal cost compared to setting fossilized forests ablaze, then why can’t the wealth benefits of that energy be distributed across the population in a more equitable way than Malthus and the zero-sum mafia would have you believe is inevitable?
The answer to that question, beyond the benefits of asking it, is beyond the scope here, but in the case of web3 coming about it is not possible to say that it will rise as nothing more than web2 in sheep’s clothing, as Professor Scott would have you believe.
Because it will take a revolution to change and tear down the mistakes of web2 (and some other outdated baggage along the way) and that is already building in the need and desire of the population that “benefits”, or not, from the current system.
The technology that is abandoned will be the tech that is not able to exist in a world where building pyramids of crap for the Pharaohs of Facebook will just not cut it anymore. And, just as web3 already exists, not in structures built to corral and kill its spirit, but in the spirit and the need for a change and better way to make use of the network.
The Federal Reserve has begun its most challenging inflation-fighting campaign in four decades. And a lot is at stake for consumers, companies and the U.S. economy.
The challenge for the Fed is to do this without sending the economy into recession. Some economists and observers are already raising the specter of stagflation, which means high inflation coupled with a stagnating economy.
As an expert on financial markets, I believe there’s good news and bad when it comes to the Fed’s upcoming battle against inflation. Let’s start with the bad.
In all, Congress spent US$4.6 trillion trying to counter the economic effects of COVID-19 and the lockdowns. While that may have been necessary to support struggling businesses and people, it unleashed an unprecedented bump in the U.S. money supply.
At the same time, supply chains have been in disarray since early in the pandemic. Lockdowns and layoffs led to closures of factories, warehouses and shipping ports, and shortages of key components like microchips have made it harder to finish a wide range of goods, from cars to fridges. These factors have contributed to a worldwide shortage of goods and services.
Any economist will tell you that when demand exceeds supply, prices will rise too. And to make matters worse, businesses around the world have been struggling to hire more workers, which has further exacerbated supply chain problems. The labor shortage also worsens inflation because workers are able to demand higher wages, which is typically paid for with higher prices on the goods they make and the services they provide.
And now Russia’s war in Ukraine is compounding the problems. This is mostly because of the conflict’s impact on the supply of gas and oil, but also because of the sanctions placed on Russia’s economy and the ancillary effects that will ripple throughout the global economy.
The latest inflation data, released on March 10, 2022, is for the month of February and therefore doesn’t account for the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which sent U.S. gas prices soaring. The prices of other commodities, such as wheat, also spiked. Russia and Ukraine produce a quarter of the world’s wheat supply.
Inflation won’t be slowing anytime soon
And so the Fed has little choice but to raise interest rates – one of its few tools available to curb inflation.
But now it’s in a very tough situation. After arguably coming late to the inflation-fighting party, the Fed is now tasked with a job that seems to get harder by the day. That’s because the main drivers of today’s inflation – the war in Ukraine, the global shortage of goods and workers – are outside of its control.
So even dramatic rate hikes over the coming months, perhaps increasing rates from about zero now to 1%, will be unlikely to make an appreciable impact on inflation. This will remain true at least until supply chains begin to return to normal, which is still a ways off.
Cars and condos
There are a few areas of the U.S. economy where the Fed could have more of an impact on inflation – eventually.
For example, demand for goods that are typically purchased with a loan, such as a house or car, is more closely tied to interest rates. The Fed’s policy of ultra-low interest rates is one key factor that has driven inflation in those sectors in recent months. As such, an increase in borrowing costs through higher interest rates should prompt a drop in demand, thus reducing inflation.
But changing consumer behavior can take time, and it’ll require more than a quarter-point increase in rates at the Fed. So consumers should expect prices to continue to climb at an above-normal pace for some time.
Higher interest rates also tend to reduce stock prices, as other investments like bonds may become more attractive to investors. This in turn may lead people invested in stock markets to reduce their spending because they feel less wealthy, which may help reduce overall demand and inflation. The effect is minimal, however, and would take time before you see the impact in prices.
That’s why I think it’s unlikely the U.S. will experience stagflation – as it did in the 1970s and early 1980s. A very aggressive increase in interest rates could possibly induce a recession, and lead to stagflation, but by sapping economic activity it could also bring down inflation. At the moment, a recession seems unlikely.
In my view, what the Fed is beginning to do now is less taking a big bite out of inflation and more about signaling its intent to begin the inflation battle for real. So don’t expect overall prices to come down for quite a while.
A 7.3 magnitude earthquake hit Japan near the north-east coast of Fukushima Wednesday March 16. According to Reuters one fatality has been reported along with 69 injuries. Authorities have issued a tsunami warning with residents in costal areas told to evacuate.
More than 2 million homes lost power, as reported by NPR, The Japanese Meteorological Agency said the quake hit at 11:36 P.M. at a depth of 36 miles below the sea.
One person is reported dead and dozens of people are believed to have suffered injuries.
In some areas it was reportedly too forceful for people to stand, and buildings rattled in the Tokyo, according to AFP.
The quake jolted the region just a week shy of the anniversary of the devastating 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that happened back in March 2011.
Over two million homes in the Tokyo region were left without power.
This is a breaking story… Please check back for possible updates…
A series of earthquakes off the coast of Japan on Wednesday triggered a tsunami advisory for Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures—just over 11 years after the region endured a major nuclear disaster.
The first two earthquakes, with magnitudes of 6.4 and 7.3, struck within two minutes of each other, followed by another 5.5 magnitude quake over an hour later, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
The strongest quake hit about 60 kilometers or 37 miles below the sea and left more than two million homes without electricity in an area serviced by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the Associated Press reported.
The AP noted that TEPCO said workers were checking for any possible damage at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Ōkuma, the site of the March 2011 disaster—which was caused by a 9.0 magnitude quake and resulting tsunami that led to multiple meltdowns at the facility.
No abnormalities were found at the Fukushima plant, The Japan Timesreported, citing the nation’s Nuclear Regulation Authority.
TEPCO also found no abnormalities at the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant in Miyagi Prefecture, according to Japan’s public broadcaster, NHK.
“There is a possibility that another earthquake as strong as an upper 6 could strike in the next week or so,” Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno told reporters just after midnight local time. “We need to be on alert.”
As Common Dreamsreported last week, environmental defenders marked the 11th anniversary of the Fukushima disaster with calls for a renewable energy future free of nuclear power.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a virtual address on Wednesday urged Congress to push for both a no-fly zone over Ukraine, as well as for additional planes and defense systems to respond to Russia’s continued invasion.
Zelenskyy said in video, “Russia has turned the Ukrainian sky into a source of death for thousands of people”.
Citing Pearl Harbor and 9/11, the Ukrainian President showed graphic video of death and devastation his country has suffered and continues to deal with daily in the war.
The live-streamed address in the Capitol complex had a translator for majority of his speech. To close, Zelenskyy spoke in English, pleading directly to President Biden: “I wish you to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.”
A day earlier, on Tuesday, President Biden signed into law a $13.6 billion package for emergency aid in Ukraine to help with humanitarian and weaponry assistance. According to Reuters, Biden is also expected to announce further aid in the amount of $800 million in security assistance to Ukraine.
Loretta Sage (played by Sandra Bullock) is a best-selling author, known for her popular romance novels. Most of her writing career has been spent behind closed doors, alone, creating love stories about her hero character named “Dash”.
All of her book covers have Dash portrayed by model Alan (played by Channing Tatum). During a book tour to promote her latest release, Loretta brings Alan alongside, although she really can’t stand him and thinks he’s just a dumb male model but her female fanbase love him.
On the tour, Loretta is kidnapped by an eccentric billionaire (played by Danielle Radcliffe) who thinks she may have the secrets to ancient lost city’s treasure as she’s written in her book. Alan who wants to prove he is not just the cover model for the character Dash, but can be a real life hero sets out to rescue Loretta.
If you are wondering why Brad Pitt is not mentioned in the plot summary, he is, alas, in a cameo appearance that came about in an amusing way, according to the quote from Sandra Bullock:
“He and I have the same hairdresser and she told him to do my movie and she told me to do his movie. That is — honest to god — the truth. We went through a whole litany of people. He was like the eighth choice.”
– Sandra Bullock on casting for ‘The Lost City’
What comes next is what you can expect from a gold ole treasure hunt in the jungle: snake pits, explosions and a heroine in distress. Just like Netflix’s “Red Notice” although its not an Academy Award winner, it is a guilty pleasure, escapist piece of entertainment.
“The Lost City” will be released in theaters March 25.
The new sci-fi action film debuted at SXSW’s opening night. The title says its all “Everything Everywhere All At Once” deals with the chaotic adventure of an exhausted Chinese American woman, Evelyn who is struggling to finish her taxes. But that’s not all she’s dealing with: a marriage on the fritz, her strained relationship with her daughter, and oh yea, the universes (multi) that are collapsing on each other.
Actress and veteran action star Michelle Yeoh plays Evelyn. Yeoh is best known for her work in “Croching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” yet has been in over 40+ movies including “Shang Chi”, “Crazy Rich Asians” and “Guardians of the Galaxy”.
While at a tax appointment, something strange happens (with her crazed tax auditor played by the iconic Jammie Lee Curtis), she finds herself experiencing alternate selves – versions of Evelyn that has bad-ass martial art skills, one that can speak English fluently, and strangest of all, one where she has hot dogs for fingers!
A full fledged multiverse that’s collapsing and only can be stopped with the help from all of her alt-world counterparts keeps the action and visual stimulation at peak levels with the story, though twisted, still present and accounted for.
The film will be released March 25 and stars Michelle Yeoh, Stephanie Hsu, Ke Huy Quan, Harry Shum Jr., Jenny Slate with James Hong and Jamie Lee Curtis. Produced by the Russo Brothers of Marvel’s Avengers fame, initial release is for theaters and no streaming platform has been announced at this date.
How do things really get done (or more often not) in Washington D.C.?
In a new video from Robert Reich, former secretary of labor and accomplished author, the sad subject of so-called ’gridlock’ in government is addressed. This perspective is particularly useful and helpful to consider since this year is an election year.
There’s an unfortunate lack of understanding regarding how things actually work and, more importantly what can be done about it.
Inequality Media, the Org, led by Robert Reich, that is responsible for this content, is putting out clear and incisive messages on topics like this on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. Getting these kinds of valuable messages out to places like YouTube, TikTok and social media is important at anytime. Now, in such a critical moment in our history, it’s essential.
Why doesn’t Congress get anything done?
Well, one chamber actually does. Hundreds of bills have been passed by the House of Representatives, but have been blocked from even getting a vote in the Senate. Bills like The Freedom to Vote Act, The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, The Equality Act, Background checks for gun sales, Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, The Build Back Better Act. The list goes on.
So why aren’t these crucial bills getting a vote in the Senate? Because the filibuster makes it impossible.
All told, the House passed over 200 bills in 2021 that have not been taken up in the Senate. Everything from investing in rural education to preventing discrimination against pregnant workers to protecting seniors from scams – bills that have real, tangible benefits for the public; bills that have widespread public support.
So don’t believe the media narrative that Congress is trapped in hopeless gridlock and both sides are to blame. One chamber of Congress, led by Democrats, is passing important legislation and delivering for the people. But Republicans in the Senate, and a handful of corporate Democrats, are hell-bent on grinding the gears of government to a halt.
Why are Senate Republicans doing this? Because their midterm strategy depends on it. Republicans are blocking crucial legislation so they can point to Democrats’ supposed inability to get anything done, and claim they’ll be able to deliver if you give them majorities.
Pearl Milk Tea, Bubble Tea, Tapioca Tea, Boba Tea, or in Taiwan, which is said to be the home country the drink originates from, they call it zhenzhu naicha – all these are different names that are essentially interchangeable for the same delicious drink.
Although Taiwan undoubtedly wins top slot for the boba capital of the world (with Hong Kong a close second), these cold beverages are a go-to option for millions across the globe; it’s enjoyed all over Asia, North America and Europe. Located in the United States myself, I’ve seen the growing popularity over recent years, with many new bubble tea shops often strategically placed near college campuses!
The recent history of bubble tea, and when boba really started to make a name in the beverage world, dates back to the early 1980’s, however, Milk tea had been known and enjoyed in Taiwan and East Asia long before that.
Bubble tea (in Chinese: boba nai cha) comes in a vast array of flavors (there are hundreds of different variations to how the tea is made up), but the foundation for the popular drink pretty much sticks to the basics. The main ingredients are : tea, milk, sweetener, and tapioca balls, also known as boba. The name Bubble Tea and Pearl Tea all stem from the star ingredient; the black tapioca pearls, or boba balls, that are small spheres and circular in shape, with a taste some say is reminiscent of tapioca pudding, only chewy and with tea!
And I guess saying black tapioca pearls is better than referring to the black pearl tapioca bubbles as ‘chewy balls’.
Where can you get your hands on this luscious Taiwanese Drink? The short answer is that you can either purchase some at one of many tea house chain shops (boba cafe), or you can make it, actually quite easily, at home.
The main ingredients are: tea, milk (or milk alternative) and a sweetener of your choice. And of course we cannot forget the star ingredient that makes it all worth while; the tapioca pearls or boba.
Are there any health benefits to Boba Tea?
There’s no definitive research that Bubble or Boba Tea has special or particular added health benefits. However the core ingredient, tea, particularly green tea, has been found to have health benefits, including lowering your blood pressure. The Black and Green teas which are popular teas for the cold drink also have caffeine which can boost your energy levels and potentially even aid with weight loss.
One popular topping for Bubble Tea is aloe vera grass jelly. Aloe vera has associations with healing, mainly with skin irritations and sunburns, however when ingested it’s also been linked to lowered blood glucose levels.
What exactly are those Pearls in Boba Tea?
The defining feature of the tea, for most aficionados, is all about what is at the bottom of the cup, those chewy tapioca balls. Simply defined, tapioca is a starch that is extracted from the cassava root. When the tapioca starch is ground up into tapioca flour, the tapioca dough is rolled into smaller sized balls that, once cooked, create the chewy texture that is the signature feature of Boba Tea.
The compounds in tapioca used for food flavoring, which are sometimes found in boba, are approved for consumption and use by the food and drug administration.
According to Liu han-chieh, who many say was the originator of the creative milk-tea recipe, people started calling the drink “bubble tea” because of the thick layer of foam that formed at top of the drink after it is shaken, not because of the black pearls. The eventual addition of tapioca balls or “boba”, according to Liu han-chieh, dates back to 1987, when a competition was held to come up with a new version of the creative concoction.
Below is a breakdown for common bubble teas, including the most well-known kind of tea as well as how to make the best bubble tea at home, whether it be for the first time, or if you are a seasoned pro:
Let’s Start with the Base: Tea
Since the drink is typically served cold, with ice cubes, having a strong and robust flavored tea will make for the best outcome, when making at home.
The stronger tea helps to retain the flavor even after the drink becomes slightly watered down from the melting ice. This is the reason cold teas are best steeped using a stronger variety of tea.
Of course, the flavor of the tea used can also vary based on your personal taste preference. Some of the more common choices used are black tea, jasmine tea and green tea.
There is no right or wrong choice for a tea base to use, and there are many, many different flavors available: white tea, red tea, fruit tea, oolong tea, fruit teas, the list goes on and on.
The first step if you want to make boba drinks at home is to prepare the tea of your choosing, see above for all the different teas to choose from. Steep your tea bags or tea leaves in a couple of cups of water. Let your boiling water and tea cool until it reaches room temperature.
Next comes the Milk – Or Not
You don’t want to add any milk into the hot water, so it’s best for it to cool before you move onto next step. Usually, milk or heavy creams is next step. Some people prefer half-and-half as the milk element in their bubble milk tea .
If milk is not in your diet but you still want to add the creamy component to your delicious bubble tea, some non-dairy creamer options could include anything from coconut milk, nut milks (almond milk, for example) or soy milk.
Although the more traditional bubble tea drink consists of dairy (boba milk tea) there are definitely people that like fresh fruit based boba drinks. These are also among the more popular types of bubble tea recipe beverages available. Fruit juice in cold water and ice accompany the boba; mango, lemon, watermelon, passionfruit and lychee are just a few flavors to mention.
Pour some Sugar on Me: Sweetener
The kind of sweetener goes along the same line of the thinking above related to the tea, it is up to your taste buds how much sugar to add.
Base this on the the level of sweetness you want your iced tea to have. Popular choices for sweetener are good ‘ole granulated sugar, dark brown sugar, sugar syrup, simple syrup, honey, and even, believe it or not, ice cream. In the case of adding ice cream – maybe a smaller size is best (since with all sweet treats, everything is good in moderation). If you just want a hint of sweetness, just use a small amount of your favor sweetener and remember, a little goes a long way.
Surprisingly people even add red beans (sweet red bean paste) which is a very commonly accompaniment to Japanese deserts (compliments well with dairy).
Finally the Star of the Show: Tapioca Pearls (Boba)
You have a few options on where to acquire your tapioca balls (pearls) a.k.a. boba when making tea at home. Boba can be found in specialty supermarkets, or more conveniently as with most items, also available on the web, like Amazon for example.
There are variations on the type of tapioca pearl and boba options out there – usually revolving around the amount of time needed to cook. Starting with raw tapioca pearls the cooking process will turn them into wonderful, chewy tapioca pearls for glorious boba tea.
Some options to purchase can take as little as 5 minutes and others could take up to an hour to cook, probably longer if you are up to the challenge of making homemade boba pearls.
Word to the wise; only cook as many boba as you want to use for your drink since, unfortunately, the cooked pearls do not keep well overnight. The Pearls stiffen quickly once cooled, so best practice is to not completely drain your pearls from the hot water until you are ready to drink your tea.
Traditional Boba is made, as mentioned above, from tapioca flour. There are also other alternatives for tapioca boba including: corn starch boba pearls, boba made from sweet potato and even taro balls.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is revealing new content to be released via Disney+, this time introducing the youngest superhero, Kamala Khan played by Iman Vellani, AKA Ms. Marvel.
At just under 2 minutes, the first trailer showcases some of the type villains a typical high school girl would presumably face, bullies at her high school. She gets picked on in particular because she’s an extreme comic book fangirl who idolizes Captain Marvel (aka Carol Danvers played by Brie Larson).
The original Marvel comic “Ms. Marvel” was first created in 2013, and if the comic is an indicator of the upcoming series story arc, there will be a focus on Kamala’s coming of age struggles (puberty, homework and yes, boys), becoming a superhero, and navigating teenage life with her Pakistani American Family.
“Ms. Marvel” will debut Kamala Khan as the first Muslim teenage superhero. The new series will be available to Disney+ subscribers starting June 8 with new episodes airing weekly. We will also see the young actress later next year sometime in 2023 reprising her role in the sequel to “Captain Marvel” called “The Marvels” which will feature Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel, alongside Vellani.
Watch the first official trailer of “Ms. Marvel” below:
“They have moved to a new stage of terror in which they are trying to physically eliminate representatives of legitimate local Ukrainian authorities,” said the Ukrainian president.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday accused Russia of committing “a crime against democracy itself” by abducting the mayor of Melitopol, a city in southern Ukraine that Russian troops seized in the early days of the invasion.
“This is obviously a sign of weakness of the invaders,” Zelenskyy said during a press conference, praising Melitopol Mayor Ivan Federov as someone “who bravely defends Ukraine and the members of his community.”
Russian forces, Zelenskyy warned, have “moved to a new stage of terror in which they are trying to physically eliminate representatives of legitimate local Ukrainian authorities.”
“The capture of the mayor of Melitopol is, therefore, a crime, not only against a particular person, against a particular community, and not only against Ukraine,” he continued. “It is a crime against democracy itself.”
According to Ukrainian officials, Russian soldiers “put a plastic bag” on Fedorov’s head and abducted him from the Melitopol city center on Friday, outraging local residents who turned out to protest the alleged kidnapping.
“Return the mayor!” townspeople shouted during a demonstration on Saturday. “Free the mayor!”
The New York Timesreported that “nearly as soon as people gathered, the Russians moved to shut them down, arresting a woman who they said had organized the demonstration, according to two witnesses and the woman’s Facebook account.”
Locals in Melitopol, a southern Ukrainian town captured by Russia, protest against the reported kidnapping of their mayor. Video via Zelensky’s office pic.twitter.com/139ld4KKly
Across Europe on Saturday, thousands of people took to the streets to protest Russia’s deadly assault on Ukraine, which shows no sign of abating after entering its third week.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron both spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone on Saturday, urging him to broker an immediate ceasefire and move toward a diplomatic resolution in Ukraine—but there was no indication that Putin was prepared to heed their demands.
“The conversation is part of ongoing international efforts to end the war in Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the German government said in a statement.
The Elysée, meanwhile, described the phone conversation with Putin as “very frank and difficult.”
The call came as Ukrainian officials braced for a potentially massive Russian assault on the capital city of Kyiv, which has thus far fought off Russia’s incursion attempts. The Associated Pressreported that fighting “raged in the outskirts of the capital” as Russian forces continued bombarding and shelling other Ukrainian cities, including the strategic port of Mariupol.
“In Irpin, a suburb northwest of Kyiv, bodies lay out in the open Saturday on streets and in a park,” according to AP.
The U.K. Ministry of Defence has assessed that “the bulk of Russian ground forces” are now roughly 25 kilometers from the center of Kyiv. Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Zelenskyy, declared Friday that Kyiv is “ready to fight.”
Zelenskyy himself said Saturday that “if there are hundreds of thousands of people, who are now being mobilized by Russia, and they come with hundreds or thousands of tanks, they will take Kyiv.”
“We understand that,” he continued. “How Ukrainian people have resisted these invaders has already gone down in history. But we have no right to reduce the intensity of defense, no matter how difficult it may be for us.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by JAKE JOHNSON and republished under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
New survey data shows that voters “want elected officials to challenge corporate greed to lower prices,” said one advocate.
On the heels of fresh data showing that the U.S. inflation rate jumped to a new 40-year high last month, a new survey found that more than 80% of American voters believe costs are rising in part because “big corporations are jacking up prices” while raking in record profits.
Released Friday by the advocacy group Fight Corporate Monopolies, the poll showed that 82% of registered U.S. voters blame big companies for at least some of the recent inflation spike and want elected officials to “take on powerful CEOs and rein in corporate greed to lower prices.”
“Rising prices is the top economic issue for most voters, and they want elected officials to challenge corporate greed to lower prices,” Helen Brosnan, executive director of Fight Corporate Monopolies, said in a statement. “Political leaders should directly address rising prices, release plans to combat corporate greed’s role in driving prices higher, and put forth arguments that center CEOs and big corporations.”
NEW: Following yesterday's inflation report, new polling shows messaging linking corporate greed to rising prices is highly effective. pic.twitter.com/TpejFfMZEn
— Fight Corporate Monopolies (@fightmonopolies) March 11, 2022
The new survey, based on a sample size of 1,000 respondents, comes as progressives in Congress continue spotlighting corporate price-gouging as a key culprit behind rising prices nationwide even as the White House abandons that narrative, despite data indicating it resonates with voters.
With gas prices surging amid Russia’s onslaught against Ukraine, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced legislation on Thursday that would impose a “windfall tax” on oil companies in an effort to “curb profiteering.”
“Last year, oil and gas companies made $174 billion in profits,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a co-sponsor of the legislation, wrote in a Twitter post. “This year they’re on track to make more. We cannot allow Big Oil to use Ukraine and ‘inflation’ as an excuse to rip off Americans.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by JAKE JOHNSON and republished under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
Given the thousands of hours of content that Rogan has produced, the scrutiny is unlikely to stop there. As we argue in our forthcoming book, Rogan’s podcast has long promoted right-wing comedy and libertarian political voices, including some who trade quite gleefully in racism and misogyny.
However, what makes Rogan’s rise particularly important is that it goes beyond the standard partisan political battling that Americans have grown accustomed to in social and broadcast media.
Rogan is not just a purveyor of right-wing ideologies. He is also someone who has built an empire by introducing these ideas – and a wide range of others – to listeners from across the political spectrum. His truly unique skill is drawing in from that spectrum a massive, young, largely male audience that advertisers highly covet.
Ideological whiplash
When the Federal Communications Commission introduced the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, radio and television broadcasters were required to present controversial ideas in a manner that reflected multiple perspectives. However, the combination of cable television, niche consumer targeting and President Ronald Reagan’s deregulatory FCC succeeded in toppling the mandate.
By 1987, conservative talk radio figures such as Rush Limbaugh embraced fully partisan approaches to content creation and audience accumulation. Ignoring their political opponents as potential listeners, they veered further and further to the right, garnering an increasingly homogeneous audience whom advertisers could easily target.
Later, as Fox News’ popularity and reach grew, it took a similar tack, promoting conservative media personalities like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Greg Gutfeld to preach to the right-wing choir.
Today, some conservative voices such as Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder take this logic a technological step further, embracing the silo-ing effects of social media algorithms to connect with those users most likely to engage with and disseminate their content. Although such figures certainly offend those who disagree with them, their place in the mediasphere is well-established and mostly ignored by opponents.
Rogan, by contrast, is prone to ideological whiplash.
There is no political commonality among these people. But there is a demographic connection. For one, they are all men, as are the vast majority of guests on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”
While Fox News sells politics to TV watchers, Rogan sells a sense of edgy authenticity to podcast listeners. His blend of comedy and controversy certainly has political implications, but from his perspective, it isn’t politics. It’s demographics.
Rogan is, for worse and for better, a true outlier in the world of contemporary talk media. Most political and many comedy podcasts employ the business model of finding an ideological space, connecting via cross-promotion and guest selection with similar shows, and allowing the algorithms of social media to drive traffic their way.
“The Joe Rogan Experience” takes this idea and pulls it in multiple, contradictory directions. Media figures left and right have – until now, at least – coveted opportunities to appear on the show. Once a comedian or podcaster has saturated their own political space, Rogan offers a chance to win over new converts and, in principle, have a discussion that breaks free of partisan constraints. For many Rogan fans, this breadth of discussion and freedom from norms is the heart of the show.
Rogan, however, is far from a neutral host of a new public sphere. His feigned naiveté is all too often a cover to promote edgy, offensive and irresponsible theories that appeal to his audience’s self-styled suspicion of authority.
He pushes the boundaries of political discourse by “just asking questions,” but then hides behind his background as just a comedian to distance himself from any undesirable repercussions.
Spotify, like other streaming services, is primarily built on a wide range of content creators, each of whom attracts a small, dedicated audience, but none of whom are, on their own, particularly powerful.
Rogan is the closest thing to a mass cultural product to be found in the podcast world. He is also one of the only names in podcasting big enough to garner headlines, good or bad. For a company like Spotify trying to boost subscriptions, Rogan’s cross-partisan, youthful, mass appeal is very hard to resist.
Rogan’s recent apologies, however, prove that he is not impervious to pressure. We suspect Spotify will try to thread the needle: covering up Rogan’s penchant for misinformation and offensive provocation just enough to meet the minimum standard of acceptable corporate citizenship without tarnishing the comedian’s brand and demographic appeal.
In addition to protests in Berlin and London, people also took to the streets in occupied Ukrainian cities and in Moscow, despite the threat of arrest.
Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock
Tens of thousands of people took to the streets to join anti-war demonstrations across Europe on Sunday as Russia continued its deadly assault on Ukraine, bombarding major cities and intensifying a humanitarian crisis that is having reverberating effects worldwide.
In addition to protests in Berlin, London, Warsaw, and Madrid—where participants carried signs and banners that read “Stop the War” and “Peace and Solidarity for the People in Ukraine”—demonstrations also sprang up on a smaller scale in occupied Ukrainian cities and in Moscow, despite the threat of arrest and police brutality.
Thousands of Russian anti-war protesters have been detained and abused by law enforcement since the invasion of Ukraine began on February 24, according to human rights organizations.
Despite threat of arrest, kidnapping and worse, Ukrainians in their thousands still come out to protest against occupying Russian forces. This latest video from Berdyansk on the Azov coast. pic.twitter.com/AFUf2bz0Wa
The demonstrations Sunday came amid some signs of diplomatic progress in talks between Russia and Ukraine, which have been negotiating on the border of Belarus since the early days of the invasion.
Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said Sunday that Russia is “beginning to talk constructively” and predicted that “we will achieve some results literally in a matter of days.”
Leonid Slutsky, a Russian delegate to the negotiations with Ukraine, echoed his counterpart’s assessment.
“According to my personal expectations, this progress may grow in the coming days into a joint position of both delegations, into documents for signing,” Slutsky told reporters Sunday, without offering specifics on what an agreement would entail.
Seemingly positive developments in diplomatic talks came as Russia showed no sign of easing its attack, which has forced more than 2.5 million people to flee Ukraine and internally displaced millions more.
Zelenskyy said Saturday that around 125,000 people have been able to escape through humanitarian corridors established in besieged cities, but hundreds of thousands remain trapped in Mariupol and other areas facing heavy shelling from Russian forces.
Early Sunday morning, Russia bombed a Ukrainian military facility located just 22 miles from the border of Poland, a NATO member. The airstrike, believed to be Russia’s westernmost attack on Ukraine thus far, killed dozens of people and wounded more than 130 others.
The Associated Press reported that “continued fighting on multiple fronts heaped further misery on the country Sunday and provoked renewed international outrage.”
Brent Renaud, an American journalist who had previously contributed to the New York Times, was killed by Russian forces in the town of Irpin, Ukrainian authorities said Sunday. A second journalist who was traveling with Renaud was reportedly injured.
“We are shocked and saddened to learn of the death of U.S. journalist Brent Renaud in Ukraine,” Carlos Martinez de la Serna of the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement. “This kind of attack is totally unacceptable, and is a violation of international law. Russian forces in Ukraine must stop all violence against journalists and other civilians at once, and whoever killed Renaud should be held to account.”
According to the United Nations, at least 549 civilians have been killed and nearly 1,000 have been wounded since Russia invaded Ukraine—estimates that are believed to be significant undercounts.
Local Ukrainian officials said Sunday that 2,187 civilians have been killed in Mariupol alone since the start of Russia’s attack.
There is a natural human tendency to crave comfort food during a time of stress, the feelings of baking and having the ability to feed and care for oneself was probably a very strong motivator. And what is more comforting than freshly baked, nay, home baked bread with a little butter and jam to beautify an afternoon spent at home. Even if the reason for being inside is not an ideal one.
Oddly, in the US and some other nations, bread and wheat products have been cast in the role of villain due to gluten intolerance and related illnesses. In the UK alone, in 2017, there were a reported 10% of the population suffering from some form of intolerance. Such a percentage would translate into tens of millions in the US.
Above: Photo / Adobe Stock
Is bread really the culprit or is there something else going on?
As a disclaimer, let it be stated up-front that there are certainly many people who suffer from conditions such as Celiac Disease who have a very real, hereditary response to gluten which is very serious. Many of the rest of us, however, who are not in that category, may have a situation brought on by a completely different set of circumstances.
Regardless of exact statistics, intolerance to gluten is clearly a “thing”, particularly in the US. Many theories are out there as to the cause, including industrial bread manufacturing methods, suspect ingredients such as emulsifiers used in baking and pesticides on wheat farms. Some have even reported that when intolerant individuals travel to Europe, symptoms disappear, although they eat bread and other gluten containing foods.
An entirely different culture producing a drastically different result: German baking tradition
While American Style bread is also available in Germany, it is rare and not commonly sold in Bakeries but rather only in SuperMarkets. They call it “Toast-Bread” as it’s primary advantage is being square and machine cut, therefore a better fit for a common toaster than the various shapes and sizes of slices cut from what they consider “normal” loaves.
What is considered normal bread is, for example, never sold more than eight hours after baking (except at “day old” scavenger prices). The number of real bakeries, ones that take very seriously the task of making “the daily bread”, per capita is large compared to any US city. This can be dug up in statistics, but is easier to realize by just walking down any street in a German city. Literally every other shop is a small bakery with a dozen different types of bread that was baked that same morning.
Bakers up at 4am all across every town and city
Another factor is the wide range of fresh ingredients included. A short list of the types of bread and various ingredients is vast, and varies from region to region. Six hundred main bread types are well known and this does not include many specialty breads and rolls.
In addition to wheat, bread is often made with rye, barley, potato, oat, spelt, soy and other lesser known grains. Added seeds, nuts and fruit often include one or more of the following (partial list):
sunflower seeds
pumpkin seeds
poppy seeds
fled seeds
walnuts
raisins
currants
sesame seeds
olives
linseed
hazelnuts
almonds
oat flakes
whole gain groats
whey
In Germany, at any common bakery on the street, most, if not all of the items described above would be available on any given day. No need to go to a special, overpriced “organic” or “gourmet” bakery in some high end neighborhood. Just any average bakery will do.
Oddly, these same ingredients are often touted in online health advice articles – implying that there are health benefits to adding these “special” ingredients to one’s diet, all while other countries have had them as daily menu items for centuries if not thousands of years.
Taking all of the above into account, it should come as little surprise that, in the US, obscure health issues due to the lack or misuse of heretofore standard food items would be on the rise. In the case of gluten intolerance, it rises to practically epidemic proportions. Fixing this for any individual, short of taking residence outside the US, would require extra efforts and involve a possible increase in the cost of nourishment. However, considering the alternatives (suffering with a condition without a cure), it might be well worth it.
Bitcoin and Crypto’s reached a major turning point: why is cryptocurrency worth anything?
In a recent interview clip Jack Dorsey quietly states his opinion on the difference between people who “get” blockchain and crypto, and those that will forever be married to the past:
This is the simply stated portion that says it all:
“People who have questions in the world, people who have curiosity (and are) recognizing that the current systems, wether they be corporate financial systems or the government financial systems just aren’t working for them…”
Although the context of his statement is regarding bitcoin as the native currency for the internet, and in particular how people are responding to the fact that financial systems “just aren’t working for them” it is, nevertheless, a perfect statement of how the world is changing.
It has already changed into two distinct groups: those that are clinging to the status quo, since it has worked very well for them, and those that want to find a new and better way, because, in most cases, the current system did not work for them.
It’s important to realize that this statement is not coming from a disgruntled outsider, but from the hugely successful founder of Square, now called Block.
The fact that a large group of highly successful business leaders, such as Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk, although benefiting massively from the current financial systems, are at the same time embracing a new way of thought and action for the future, is at the crux of the issues addressed in this post.
Buffet vs Musk & Dorsey and the zero sum mindset of Malthusian Capitalism
There is a war waging between those that are open to, and welcoming of, bitcoin, crypto, blockchain, DeFi and other new financial innovations and those that reject all of it and would like nothing more than to see it stopped, by any means necessary.
The derision, insults and disdain lobbed at bitcoin, crypto and anyone that believes in them, by the “old guard” epitomized by Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger are now well known and documented:
A few quotes:
“Probably rat poison squared.” — Warren Buffett in Fox Business interview at 2018 meeting
“I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interests of civilization” – Charlie Munger vice chairman at Berkshire Hathaway
“I certainly didn’t invest in crypto. I’m proud of the fact I’ve avoided it. It’s like a venereal disease or something. I just regard it as beneath contempt.” – Charlie Munger vice chairman at Berkshire Hathaway
Interestingly, if you look deeper at the interviews and quotes, you’d see that, in spite of the headline grabbing hyperbole, it’s the price speculation that is at the heart of the criticism.
The comments that crypto and bitcoin “don’t produce anything” are ridiculous on their face, as if the fiat dollar “produces” products, services or anything else.
Oh, wait, the dollar does “produce” inflation (loss in value), and has done so very dependably over the last 100+ years.
Take a stat so well known that it is almost a cliché, any way you put it: a 2013 U.S. dollar (the year the federal reserve was created, not coincidentally) would be worth more than 16x what a dollar is worth today. One has to ask where that value is now?
Bitcoin, however, has over time only gained value. A lot. If bitcoin is rat poison, maybe the fiat system and the federal reverse are the rat?
100 year old billionaires are, aparently, not inclined to speak from enlightened self-interest. Or, to be kind, perhaps they are blinded by the success they enjoyed in a system that favors anyone at the top of the pyramid, one built on value theft?
One very big caveat, however, is clearly that the “everything bubble” is bursting, price speculation always ends in price crashes, and the massive gains in the value of various cryptocurrencies are a symptom of a larger systemic emergency, rather than a quality inherent to crypto itself. There’s that.
The gap between this kind of thinking vs. that of the forward looking cryptocurrency proponents, and what they consider to be positive innovations, is vast. In a time where divisive thought is nearly ubiquitous this is not news.
However, the fact that the legions of those that “get it” are as large as they are, and that they are constantly growing, has clearly taken the debate past the point of no return.
To get the full view of this divide it’s important to look also at just how the nearly 100 year old duo of Buffet & Munger got to be the “legends” that they are.
All the best known names they are associated with, from the initial Berkshire Hathaway purchase in 1962 to more recent investments in companies such as CocaCola, GEICO Insurance, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Sees Candy, Clayton Homes and so on, paint a clear picture of extreme hierarchal and exploitative capitalism that is solely based on making themselves and shareholders rich, and doing it on the backs of consumers.
In an example of the thinking of those that do not worship the duo, in The Nation, David Dayen wrote: “America isn’t supposed to allow moats, much less reward them. Our economic system, we claim, is founded on free and fair competition. We have laws over a century old designed to break up concentrated industries, encouraging innovation and risk-taking. In other words, Buffett’s investment strategy should not legally be available, to him or anyone else.”
Exactly this kind of double standard, corrupt to the core, is built on systemic greed founded on a Malthusian “zero-sum mindset”. This is what has led millions to conclude that the system just isn’t working for them.
Being championed ad nausea for this lifetime of “achievement” is part and parcel of the status quo that many, from many in the 99% to the “nouveau 1%”, such as Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, Vitalik Buterin and many others, are actively seeking alternatives to.
That distinction, being rich and powerful and yet not satisfied with the legacy of corruption and greed, is at the heart of the new wave of thought that has made bitcoin, crypto and DeFi a force to be reckoned with.
Moreover, seeing the state of the world that centuries of this kind of thinking has engendered, it’s natural for the young and more enlightened to want to search for other ways for things to work, ways that perhaps champion something other than monopolistic greed and exploitation.
In a recent Interview Elon Musk addressed precisely this issue – how many in the current system are focused on prospering at the expense of others and maintaining a zero-sum mindset. In the clip he outlines how important it is to understand the failure of that approach.
The idea that crypto will disappear is wishful thinking by those that cling to the systems of the past
A clip of Harrison Ford speaking at the Global Climate Action Summit was banned on some platforms as incendiary. Why? Because he passionately accuses those that are financially linked to fossil fuels of working to spread disinformation and misinformation, in order to perpetuate their massive incomes, even while the planet is on the brink of climate disaster.
Blocking this opinion, from a rich and famous film star, no less, is typical in the way that the established system works to suppress the idea that you should do anything about the fact that “it’s just not working” for you.
This is the same divide, mentioned above, that is nearly all pervasive today, but will never stop innovation in thinking about financial systems. It will not stop DeFi or DAOs or crypto or bitcoin.
It will not stop sustainable energy from becoming an ever bigger part of the world’s energy infrastructure. The point of going back has long since passed.
How money works according to Musk
Jack Dorsey has an understated and somehow “quiet” way of expressing revolutionary ideas. Elon Musk, on the other hand, is well known for controversial and flamboyant statements, and especially tweets.
But to get a taste of just how radical his thinking really is, particularly to those that disagree, you have to dig deeper into lengthy interviews, such as those with Lex Fridman, where he reveals his thinking more specifically on money, crypto and the governments role in the system of money.
Coming from the wealthiest person on earth, some may find it odd, yet his thoughts on crypto vs fiat money are well documented. It’s just this kind of stance, taken by so many in the “new” establishment at the top of the current financial pyramid, who also see the necessity for change toward new ideas and systems that can so away with the worst of the status quo, well represented above by Buffet & Munger and other “crypto haters”.
Government is a corporation in the limit
In yet another interview excerpt, Musk goes even deeper into his belief that – in his exact words: “if you don’t like corporations should really hate governments”
While this particular statement arose out of a spat with Senator Elizabeth Warren regarding taxes, the overall concept of challenging the status quo and the, clearly failed, systems perpetuated, remains in play.
Web3, and how Web2 and legacy financial structures are linked
Although fraught with infighting – the typical bitcoin vs. Ethereum vs. Doge vs. Shiba Inu internal debates and criticisms are not on the magnitude of the division between those that generally support and benefit from, for example, status quo financial structure and fossil fuel business, vs those that favor Blockchain and Sustainable energy.
Further, the spirit of the clash between Web2 and Web3 rests not on the tech or the systems themselves, which it can be argued are the same, but on the beliefs and intent of each camp.
The surveillance capitalism business models of web2, epitomized by Facebook and Google are diametrically opposed to the spirit and stated goals of web3, just as bitcoin was created out of a time that, not coincidentally, corresponded to the 2008 crash and crisis born of the greed and corruption of the legacy economic establishment.
There are two distinct camps that have emerged.
Those, such as Tesla and Elon Musk, that reject the traditional holy grail of shareholder value and instead embrace, for example, a more enlightened mission “to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy”. This aligns with any individual choosing the support crypto as a “Hodler” or at least believer, vs. those that support the legacy systems of finance, the fossil fuel industrial complex and Web2’s exploitative business model.
This divide is the ultimate test of our time and it will only grow in stature and importance.
The correspondence between forward looking innovation in all human thought, communication and action is already too big to stop and cannot be wished away.
There will undoubtedly be setbacks to these new directions, and there will be attacks using more than insults, such as those quoted above, but the time for the unstoppable force to be quelled is long since past. Coke and a smile? No thanks.
