Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/24/2016 11:34:31 PM

Trump and the white power problem

Matt Bai
National Political Columnist
Yahoo News


Donald Trump (Artwork by Livio Mancini for Yahoo News based on a photo by John Locher/AP)

I’ve written a lot of pretty rough things about Donald Trump over the last 18 months. I’ve called him an entertainer and an emotional extremist, a guy with a black hole at his center. I’ve likened him to P.T. Barnum and a dime-store psychic.

Not once, though, have I suggested that Trump is, personally, a racist or an anti-Semite, which are labels people throw around too often these days. He’s always struck me as an opportunist more than anything else — an act in search of an audience, which he just happened to find in some of the darkest corners of the American psyche.

I figured that if a loud chunk of conservative voters had been anxiously agitating for someone to champion, say, antipoverty programs instead of a wall, Trump would have jumped on that horse just as quickly. Whatever his flaws, I didn’t take him for a devoted bigot.

It’s only now, after another staggering week in our fast unraveling society, that I find myself asking a question I really never imagined asking.

Does the president-elect of the United States feel some genuine kinship with the white nationalists he’s managed to embolden? Or does he just think it’s not a big deal if a bunch of crazy guys go around saluting him like Nazis?

To be clear, I’ve never managed to get very excited about the white power folks who pop up in the news sporadically, marching in parades or holding little conferences in some backwoods Best Western. They’ve always seemed more sad than menacing to me, like the clowns at some crumbling, last-ditch carnival.

But if you haven’t yet watched this video of white nationalists “heiling” Trump in Washington last weekend, you should, because it’s really something.

Here’s a recognized leader of the so-called alt-right movement from which Trump has drawn support and counsel, a guy who wouldn’t look at all out of place as a swastika-clad extra in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” doing a little Hitler impression in Trump’s honor and railing against the media in the original German. (“One wonders if these people are people at all,” he says, which sounds to me like an invitation to violence.)

And this isn’t in some drab Southern banquet room, but rather in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building, a few blocks from the White House. (You’d think these people would at least have had the decency to walk across the plaza to the building named for Woodrow Wilson, who would have agreed with them when it came to mixing races.)

To keep this in perspective, which is important, we’re talking here about maybe 200 white guys in a country of 300 million-plus; it’s not like they’re goose-stepping through the streets by the hundreds of thousands. It’s also not like Trump endorsed the rally or sent a video expressing his gratitude.

But it’s not as if Trump has nothing to do with the brazenness of it, either. Even Republicans have to acknowledge that in his rhetoric and rallies throughout the campaign, Trump relegitimized a kind of racism and xenophobia that had been finally relegated to the margins of public life. He behaved like a human Ouija board, unleashing spirits better consigned to the netherworld.

This is distinct from your run-of-the-mill resentment in white, working-class enclaves, your basic backlash to political correctness gone badly awry, for which I actually have some sympathy. This is taunting Jewish journalists about going to the ovens. This is swastikas popping up again in our cities and suburbs.

This is ordinary citizens walking down the street and being told to go back to their own countries because they aren’t white. This is grown men who run around bullying every guy who doesn’t accept the superiority of white males by calling him a “cuck,” whatever that means.

This is new, or at least resurgent, and it is profoundly frightening to an awful lot of Americans at the moment.

So what is Trump’s response, now that he’s taken on the task of making America great again?

Well, he certainly had no problem summoning outrage this week. On Twitter, he railed against the impertinent cast of “Hamilton,” which he called an overrated show, and against “Saturday Night Live,” which he thought one-sided and not funny. He found time to bitterly complain to the president of NBC News about a photo that made him appear to have a double chin. (Reality is rough, even for a reality TV star.)

But when it came to leading white supremacists raising stiff arms to him as if he were Hitler reincarnate, Trump at first said nothing, and then, under pressure, allowed his spokeswoman to release a terse statement tepidly disavowing their support.

Pushed repeatedly about this at a meeting with reporters and editors from the New York Times, Trump said, “Boy, you are really into this stuff,” as if surprised it should keep coming up. “It’s not a group I want to energize,” he said at one point, “and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why.”

This, of course, was after he named Steve Bannon, an intellectual hero of the alt-right movement, as his top White House strategist — a pick he much more vehemently defended in the same interview. It was after he chose Jeff Sessions, who was kept off the federal bench because of his ignominious record on race, as the nation’s attorney general, and Michael Flynn, a general who regards all Islam as the enemy, as his national security adviser.

To be clear, Trump isn’t the only Republican who’s oddly reticent when it comes to white nationalists. Where’s Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell? How about loyalists like Rudy Giuliani, who ran the nation’s most Jewish city, or Chris Christie, who would never let this kind of thing go unanswered in New Jersey?

Where’s Jared Kushner, the omnipresent son-in-law, whom Trump apparently trusts with negotiating Middle East peace, and who is, incidentally, an orthodox Jew? Does he not think this might be a moment to exert some influence?

What about all those “Never Trump” leaders who were supposedly standing for a more enlightened Republican Party? I guess Mitt Romney can’t afford to get sidetracked denouncing racism, now that he’s trying to take back all the things he said about Trump and get himself appointed secretary of state.

(By the way, Mitt, when that phone finally rings, you’d better be prepared to hear laughter on the other end. This whole business of making you grovel is what they call payback in the big city.)

But Trump’s is the voice that matters most. He’s the one who ignited new hope for a racist, authoritarian renaissance — and if those hopes aren’t shared by some vast legion of white Americans, neither are they confined to a few hundred. He has some responsibility to curb that enthusiasm before windows and bones start getting smashed.

My guess is that Trump thinks these people are a little nutty, in the way that fervid supporters often are, but not really worth alienating just to please a bunch of people like me. I’m betting he believes that white men, generally speaking, have been abused by the cultural elite and overlooked by policymakers — but that’s a different thing from espousing white supremacy.

And yet if Trump really is more of an opportunist than an ideologue, then he ought to see the opportunity here, too. Some large segment of Americans voted to give him an audition in office, despite grave reservations about his temperament. The latest Pew Research poll found that a large majority of voters — including a sizable segment of those who voted for him — were disgusted by his campaign.

Trump’s success will depend a lot on how well he channels that emotion. He could do himself a lot of good right now by going after neo-Nazis and the like with at least the same fervor he reserves for Broadway actors and photo editors.

If Trump won’t assail hatred on moral grounds, then surely he can bring himself to capitalize on it.


(Yahoo News)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/24/2016 11:59:59 PM

PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE WARNS OF ‘THE FEW WHO HOLD POWER AND MONEY’


BY



Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has vowed to “share the money of the entire country,” which could only happen by removing it “from clutches of the few people who hold the power and money,” Al Jazeera has reported.

Duterte spoke Wednesday after arriving in the Philippines from the summit of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation in Peru, where leaders agreed to fight “all forms of protectionism.”

The leader said that confronting oligarchs and conglomerates across the Philippines would contribute to its growth.

"The only way to make this country move faster to benefit the poor is really to open up communications, the air waves and the entire energy sector," Duterte said from his home city of Davao. "Or else, you can count on your fingers the power-players of this country. I would not say that they are the elite."

"I would like just to send this strong message: it's about time that we share the money of the entire country and to move faster, make competition open to all."

Duterte has repeatedly threatened to fight corruption and protectionism, having already issued warnings to the country’s telecoms duopoly of Philippine Long Distance Telephone and Globe Telecom to shape up or face new competition from the likes of Chinese companies.

(Newsweek)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/25/2016 12:13:12 AM

NIGERIAN FORCES ‘KILLED 150 PRO-BIAFRA PROTESTERS’, SAYS AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL


BY


Nigerian security forces have killed at least 150 pro-Biafra supporters, some by extrajudicial executions, since August 2015, according to Amnesty International.

In a report published Thursday, the human rights group said that Nigerian government forces killed at least 60 people on May 29 and 30, when pro-Biafra activists had come together for a memorial gathering in Onitsha, in Nigeria’s southeast Anambra state.

Nigerian military officer Odumegwu Ojukwu declared an independent republic of Biafra in southeast Nigeria in 1967, sparking a three-year civil war in which more than 1 million people died, many due to famine after Nigeria imposed a blockade on Biafra’s borders.

In recent years, there has been a resurgence in pro-Biafra sentiment, which has been exacerbated by the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu in Nigeria in October 2015. Kanu is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, a prominent activist group calling for the secession of Biafra from Nigeria. He has been charged with various crimes, including treasonable felony, but his trial has suffered multiple delays.

The organization called upon the Nigerian government to launch an impartial investigation into the killings. Amnesty’s interim director in Nigeria, Makmid Kamara, said that the military’s “reckless and trigger-happy approach” had increased tensions in the southeast of the country and that the human rights group feared that the death toll was “far higher.”

The Nigerian Army denied Amnesty’s allegations. Army spokesman Colonel Sani Usman said in a statement Wednesday that the military and other security agencies had “exercised maximum restraint despite the flurry of provocative and unjustifiable violence” that pro-Biafra activists had allegedly perpetrated.

Usman added that five police officers were killed during the May protests, when pro-Biafra supporters held a Remembrance Day gathering to commemorate those who had died in the civil war, while several soldiers were wounded and Nigerian police and military vehicles vandalized.

The Amnesty report was based on analysis of 87 videos, 122 photographs and 146 eyewitness testimonies relating to pro-Biafra demonstrations in the year after August 2015. One pro-Biafra activist said that he was shot by the military during the Remembrance Day protests in Nkpor, Anambra state, and hid in a gutter. When he was found still alive, soldiers poured acid on him, burning parts of his body.

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, who fought for the Nigerian side in the civil war, has not publicly commented on the report.

(Newsweek)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/25/2016 10:48:44 AM

Report: Experts Believe Swing State Voting Machines May Have Been Hacked And Are Urging Clinton To Challenge The Election

Brett Michael
UPROXX

hillary_clinton.jpg

Shutterstock

In something of a bombshell story published on Tuesday night, New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman — best known for being Roger Ailes’ worst nightmare — reports that a group of computer security experts believe that “they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked” and they’re urging Hillary Clinton to contest the election results in those states. Sherman reports that the group — which includes noted voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society — has been lobbying Clinton and her inner circle in recent days.

Writes Sherman:

Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.

According to current tallies, Trump has won 290 Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 232, with Michigan’s 16 votes not apportioned because the race there is still too close to call. It would take overturning the results in both Wisconsin (10 Electoral College votes) and Pennsylvania (20 votes), in addition to winning Michigan’s 16, for Clinton to win the Electoral College.

There’s been some underground rumbling on social media in recent days about voting irregularities in swing states, specifically in voting districts that used electronic voting machines, which has led to the rise of a #AuditTheVote hashtag. Some, including the sister of Clinton advisor Huma Abedin, have been urging people to call the Department of Justice to ask for an official investigation (though that’s probably a complete waste of time). But Sherman’s report is the first to offer any legitimacy to what was otherwise viewed by many as a liberal conspiracy theory.

Having computer security and voting statistics experts raise red flags about the irregularities — in addition to the fact that U.S. intelligence believes Russia has beenactively trying to influence the election via hacking, to the point of being on high alert on election day, and with almost every pre-election poll and election day exit poll showing Clinton winning the three states in question — is sure to intensify the calls for a closer investigation. Oh, and there’s also the fact that Clinton is now winning the popular vote by almost two million with many votes in California still to be counted.

However, it remains to be seen whether or not Clinton will do anything. There was a lot of pre-election concern expressed by the Clinton camp, her supporters, and the media about whether Trump and his supporters would accept the result of the election if he lost. Hillary Clinton, of all people, understands how important a smooth transition of power is to American democracy. But then again, handing the reigns of power to Donald Trump is likely viewed much differently by Clinton and her inner circle than, say, handing the reigns of power to someone like Mitt Romney or John McCain. They could very well make the case that in this instance, contesting the election to keep Donald Trump — and controversial people close to him like Steve Bannon — out of power is in the country’s best interest.

There is, however, this…


Some have even wondered if Trump’s sudden bromance with President Obama and signal that he wouldn’t assign a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton are calculated moves designed to discourage any support for an election challenge by the White House or the Clinton camp.

If she is to challenge the results, Clinton will have to do so soon. As Sherman notes in his piece, “the deadline in Wisconsin to file for a recount is Friday; in Pennsylvania, it’s Monday; and Michigan is next Wednesday.”

(Yahoo News)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/25/2016 1:24:17 PM
West Antarctica is in huge trouble. But now, scientists say the problem may date back to 1945




Crevasses on Pine Island Glacier. (J Smith.)


Science likes to surprise us. That’s the extraordinary, mind-opening thing about it.

It’s possible that is now happening with one of the most stunning stories yet in the climate change saga — the finding that the enormous glaciers of West Antarctica appear to be retreating in an “unstoppable” way. It’s a process which, if it continues, could ultimately turn the West Antarctic ice sheet into an area of wide open ocean and raise global sea levels by 10 feet.

It has long been assumed that this destabilization of West Antarctica was caused by human-induced climate change. However, a new study published in the journal Nature Wednesday may have just made that story considerably more complicated.

The new research, led by researchers with the British Antarctic Survey but with accompaniment from scientists at U.S., German, Dutch, Swiss, and British universities, focuses on Pine Island Glacier, one of the largest and most threatening in West Antarctica. It is dumping nearly 50 gigatons (or billion tons) of ice into the oceans each year right now – more than any other glacier on the globe except for its next door neighbor, Thwaites — and could ultimately raise ocean levels by close to two feet all on its own.

This is happening because the glacier has been retreating backwards and downhill — the marine-based glacier rests in very deep waters, and the terrain behind where it currently touches the ocean gets even deeper inland. It’s an unstable configuration, and scientists have long suspected that warm ocean waters created the problem by effectively un-grounding the glacier from a roughly 800 meter deep undersea ridge, upon which it was resting in a more stable alignment.

The surprise from the new study, though, is the suggestion that the un-grounding may have started all the way back in the early to mid-1940s — while the entire world was at war and we didn’t have satellite images of Antarctica. It was a period that saw an early and distinct pulse of planetary warming, but things were not as hot as they are today.

The early 1940s were hot for a very particular reason — a strong and long-lasting Pacific El Nino event spanning from 1939 to 1942. This mega-El Nino, a precursor to the massive El Ninos we’ve since seen in 1997-1998 and 2015-2016, affected the circulation of the atmosphere all the way down in Antarctica, where stronger winds in the Amundsen sea region can allow warmer deep waters, called “circumpolar deep water,” to move in towards the glaciers. There’s general agreement that these waters are responsible for West Antarctic retreat.

The new study required scientists to set up camp atop the now floating section of Pine Island glacier and drill through the thick ice all the way down to the 800 meter deep ridge beneath it, where the ice once rested. There, they took several seafloor samples, or cores, from different parts of the ridge.

The researchers were able to date the sediments in the cores, and to discern key clues from them. For instance, when the ice sat on the ridge it “bulldozed” (in the scientists’ words) the seafloor down and buried areas on the ocean side of the ridge in new sediments. Whereas once the ice lifted from the ridge and shifted backwards, the sediment layering became different, finer and more characteristic of the influence of the ocean and warm circumpolar deep waters.

Thus, the researchers could date when the ice began to lift from the ridge and when it had completed the process of doing so. And they conclude that a little after the El Niño of 1939 to 1942, an “ocean cavity” opened up behind the ridge, one that warm waters could get into — a first sign of destabilization. However, the ice did not lift fully off the ridge until around 1970, the researchers believe.

The unavoidable question is what this sequence of events says about our own responsibility for destabilizing Pine Island (and, perhaps, other West Antarctic glaciers). The world was less warm in the 1940s, after all, and the role of human-caused global warming on El Nino events remains debated.

For their part, the authors insist they’re staying neutral on the human role, known in the science world as anthropogenic — they’re just reporting new, extremely hard-to-get observations.

“Teasing out whether the processes, the mechanisms that we’re talking about were related to anthropogenic forcing was never really the focus of this paper,” says James Smith, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey who’s the first author of the study. “The 1940s is potentially a few years before the really big spike in anthropogenic-forced warming but it’s certainly within the realms of human-induced change.”

Smith also noted that while other glaciers in the region have also been retreating — including the very dangerous one at Thwaites, which is even bigger than the one at Pine Island — the study couldn’t say whether they, too, were in effect pushed by the same factors in the 1940s. And yet it’s hard not to wonder if whatever affected Pine Island during that era also affected its neighbors.

The study drew a range of comments from other experts not involved in the work — all of whom praised it, but who came to varied interpretations of its broader significance when it comes to the key question of human causation.

“Pine Island Glacier and probably others in the Amundsen Sea were destabilized in the 1940s, and have been retreating ever since, with a few brief periods of stability,” said Eric Steig, an Antarctic expert at the University of Washington-Seattle who haspreviously published on how El Nino events warm West Antarctica. “It will almost certainly continue this way. We don’t know if we caused it. It’s frustrating to not be able to say anything definitive on that last point, but I really don’t think we can.”

However, Richard Alley, a noted glaciologist at Penn State University, had a different interpretation. He suggested the possibility that what happened in the 1940s may have been the last in a long chain of El Nino and La Nina-linked wobbles back and forth for Pine Island, before more decisive human influences came in and destabilized it for good.

“The data collected probably would not be able to see earlier ungroundings on the upglacier side of the ridge, because later groundings would erase the record,” Alley continued. “If this model is correct, then the ‘real’ event that is most important is the main retreat in the 1970s, which is after human forcing had become more important.”

“In terms of the human influence on the Antarctic, I think you have to be very cautious about over-interpreting the results of the paper, that’s the bottom line,” added Eric Rignot, a polar researcher with NASA and the University of California-Irvine who published a blockbuster study on the destabilization of the Amundsen Sea in 2014.

Rignot praised the new observations, but said that recent changes in the Amundsen Sea region are strong and synchronous, and appear to be something different from what may have happened in the 1940s.

“Pine Island is not the only one, you have Thwaites, you have Smith-Kohler, they all sort of retreat at the same rate, so to blame things on just one little ridge, on one glacier, is probably a little bit risky,” he said. “The whole picture is there’s a common forcing to all of those, and there’s no way these glaciers could have retreated and sped up like they did in the last 20 years, and did that for decades, even a century.”

Even as the new paper seems likely to spark considerable debate, another just released study of Pine Island raises the stakes even further. Seongsu Jeong of the Ohio State University and colleagues from Ohio State and the University of Michigan suggests that Pine Island has begun a new, different, and troubling form of ice loss in recent years. Rifts are now opening in the center of its floating ice shelf (the part that was once grounded on the ridge), rather than at its front end, and the authors suggest it may be because warm water is carving deeply into that shelf from below.

If this process continues, that “would provide a potential mechanism for rapid ice shelf disintegration,” they write.

So what we know now is this: West Antarctica’s glaciers, and Pine Island glacier in particular, are in retreat, and this is happening even as we are changing the planet in myriad ways with our greenhouse gas emissions. We don’t know all that we could about how long this has been going on, and the further back in time you go the murkier it gets — but it’s still quite the coincidence.

(The Washington Post)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1


facebook
Like us on Facebook!