Trump

[DannyInvincible]

A year after describing NATO as "obsolete", Donald Trump now decides all-of-a-sudden that it is "no longer obsolete": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39585029

At a joint press conference with Mr Stoltenberg, Mr Trump said: "The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more Nato can do in the fight against terrorism.

"I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change, and now they do fight terrorism.

"I said it [Nato] was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete."

Somehow, it both amuses and depresses me that he's pretending NATO made some significant policy-change within the last year in terms of countering terrorism and, worse, that he's implying he motivated this (imaginary) change.

[DannyInvincible]

The stark contrast between the BBC's article on Russia's vetoing of a Western-proposed UN resolution relating to Syria and Russia Today's reporting of the same development is remarkable.

Syria war: Anger after Russia vetoes resolution at UN

Russia has vetoed a draft resolution at the UN Security Council that would have condemned last week's alleged chemical attack in Syria and demanded that Damascus cooperate with investigators. The resolution was presented by the US, UK and France, who reacted angrily to Russia's decision. It was the eighth time Russia has protected its ally at the council.

The suspected chemical attack on rebel-held Khan Sheikhun on 4 April killed more than 80 people. Western allies blamed the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and US President Donald Trump ordered missile strikes against a Syrian air force base in response.

Russia vetoes West’s 'misconceived' Syria resolution at UN Security Council

Moscow has vetoed a US-backed resolution condemning the Khan Shaykun incident on April 4 as a chemical attack while demanding that Syria open up its military bases to inspections. Russia, which has veto power as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, was joined by Bolivia in voting down the resolution. China, Ethiopia and Kazakhstan abstained. Ten states, including the US, the UK and France – the Troika that put together the text of the resolution – voted in favor.

“The main objection to the resolution is that it apportioned blame prior to an objective outside investigation of the incident... The outcome of the vote was predestined, because we disagreed categorically with a document that was fundamentally misconceived,” said Vladimir Safronkov, Russia’s deputy envoy at the Security Council, who also accused other states and international organizations of making “no effort” to inspect the site of the alleged attack. Accepting the resolution would also “legitimize” the April 7 air strike carried out by the US on the Shayrat airbase in northern Syria, from which Washington claims government planes carrying the deadly sarin nerve gas took off, Safronkov said.

[Wolfman]

Not really, they've been at it for decades...

[DannyInvincible]

Not really, they've been at it for decades...

Russia Today is obviously pro-Kremlin and I don't think it even bothers denying it. The BBC, however, is much more insidious. It likes to portray itself as impartial and objective, but it's such a bizarre claim for any news organisation to make. Anything humans perceive will be inherently subject to and influenced by the subjective biases, predilections and perspectives of our natural condition and the BBC is administered by humans, obviously.

Even use of an ostensibly-harmless phrase like "so-called 'Islamic state'", which the BBC commonly employs on a near-daily basis, is very much politically-loaded. It directly undermines the professed legitimacy of ISIS. Whatever ones opinions on the unsettling ISIS, it's still very much a partial political statement to refer to them in such a manner. Imagine, for example, the BBC used the phrase "the so-called 'United States'" when referring to the US or "the so-called 'United Kingdom'" (as mischievous regional nationalists and separatists have been doing more frequently since the divisive Brexit vote) when referring to the UK...

Any active attempt to be "impartial" in itself is inherently political. Of course, people are entitled to their biases, but it would be much more preferable for the good of the general public if the BBC was at least honest about the impossibility of its self-declared mandate rather than maintaining this dangerously-misleading pretence.

[Wolfman]

Again it's all part of the same circus.

The BBC news wise has been declining for years, still watch it to see what bias I can spot?

[SkStu]

It is funny how this thread has come almost full circle and back to the points that I was originally making about the mainstream media shaping our opinion and controlling/defining political and social discourse. If people are interested in becoming as informed as possible on certain issues (e.g. President Trump) one source of news will not provide that to you. Looking at a headline wont do. Thinking that SNL is "funny cos its true" is not an acceptable point of view.

The only solution I have found is to expose oneself to as many different information outlets (of all persuasions) and try and figure out your own take on the issue. It requires you to learn more about who you are as a person, what values and principles you truly hold near and dear and then determine if you are or are not willing/comfortable to have those adjusted by challenging yourself, your biases and your thinking.

I think ive been labeled on this site now as a stupid Trump fan who is blindly loyal to a dictator and I think my reputation has taken a hit. That blind loyalty has never been the case. I don't agree with him on every policy item, far from it, although I think if you take a step back and look at what he has accomplished he is doing a fairly good job for someone who is the anti-politician really and I think he has been treated so badly by the major media sources who, quite frankly, I think are scared of him and what he may expose about those who fund and control them.

My journey from thinking "Sanders is God" to "Hilary for President" to "actually I think Trump should be President" came about as a result of a lot of what I set out above and what I learned along the way. About 16-18 months I was asked if I thought Obama would be looked upon as a good President and I laughed and said "of course, I think he will be seen as one of the best". About 12 months after that question, my opinion had done a full 180. Wikileaks was my biggest moment of realization wrt the political system and the control the players had on the information we consumed and what we were and were not allowed to know and think and talk about.

These are really the things we should be questioning from a broader perspective as citizens. Things like google providing fact checks on searches, Facebook tagging what it determines to be "fake news". The ability to debate and discuss issues without being shouted down, attacked or labeled has all but disappeared. It is all about control. These are worrying developments for us all. Sure, Trump is a buffoon, is inexperienced and a couple of his policies are certainly sufficiently right-leaning to be questioned and debated - but really, the issues that are most important to me are the ones that I have set out in this post and previously.

[KrisLetang]

Well said Stu. It's hard to debate the echo chamber that gets news from places like SNL in the first place. I actually work in Rock Center now and have not seen SNL in years. I see the ppl more than the show. What would be the point? It's just a rallying cry. And man they missed some golden moments under Obama. Shame really. Why would anyone be all the way to the left or right? Makes no sense. It's interesting about the fact check thing you mentioned too though. The one everyone mentions in backing up their claims is Politifact, right? So they supported the Obama Administration saying (condescendingly I might add) that Syria had given up all of their chemical weapons. After the other day, they released a statement that immediately went viral "retracting" those accuracy claims. So I mean...It does little good if they are just going to take what are now obvious lies as fact in the first place. Just saying. Like when George W Bush called an Orca "A fish" and people were like If he doesn't know that, what else doesn't he know?

Trumper dropped a MOAB bomb on ISIS today. Biggest one since Hiroshima I think.

[DannyInvincible]

'“Mother of All Bombs” Never Used Before Due to Civilian Casualty Concerns': https://theintercept.com/2017/04/13/...alty-concerns/

“[The MOAB has] got a huge blast radius. I mean, it’s beyond huge,” [Marc Garlasco, former Pentagon senior intelligence analyst] said. “I’m sure the collateral damage estimate is going to be fairly extensive. And you’re not talking about just blast [which has a mile-long blast radius], and people within that blast, you have to consider secondary and tertiary effects of use of the weapon. So looking at things like: How does that affect the water supply to people? Is it going to destroy power within the area?”

...

While the MOAB strike has attracted far more media attention, the U.S. and Afghan government forces have killed increasing numbers of people lately. According to a U.N. report in February, airstrikes from the Afghan government forces and the U.S.-led coalition killed nearly 600 civilians — almost double the number in 2015 — and have been repeatedly accused of bombing residential areas.

[KrisLetang]

That was a warning to the Jongster.

[mark12345]

The only solution I have found is to expose oneself to as many different information outlets (of all persuasions) and try and figure out your own take on the issue. It requires you to learn more about who you are as a person, what values and principles you truly hold near and dear and then determine if you are or are not willing/comfortable to have those adjusted by challenging yourself, your biases and your thinking.

You're onto something here. I posted on here a couple of weeks ago about my own personal experience via the prism of the drug problem on the streets of America (and might I add, was quickly shot down for it). To me it is all about personal experience and if I can please be allowed to restate my perspective on Donald Trump. I try to use logic in all debates I see before me. And my logic regarding Donald Trump / drugs in America is the following: If I walk out my door I see legions of drug affected young people in my community (they appear to offer little as far as work ethic and responsibility and accountability). And it's just a microcosm of American suburbia, where every community is affected by drugs. It is obvious to me - drugs are the silent killer in this country. You can talk all you want about terrorism (which of course needs talking about) but the ravages of drugs on the people is right there in front of your face every day.

Now whom among the clatter of politicians who vied for the presidency over an 18 month period, actually took on and addressed the subject of drug abuse. There was only one man and that was Donald Trump. And look where it has led him. It has led him to declare war on the drug gangs of America, to stop illegal immigration which was fueling these gangs, and to address the Mexican government who make between $300 and $400 billion per year on drug trafficking (of course there are the users themselves who are also a big part of the problem). It will also lead Mr Trump to slowly but surely take back the neighborhoods in this country and to bring back a day when kids can go to school without having to worry about being accosted by gang bangers (Chicago under Obama was something to behold). That is just a personal view on how things are improving in America under Donald Trump.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Even use of an ostensibly-harmless phrase like "so-called 'Islamic state'", which the BBC commonly employs on a near-daily basis, is very much politically-loaded. It directly undermines the professed legitimacy of ISIS. Whatever ones opinions on the unsettling ISIS, it's still very much a partial political statement to refer to them in such a manner. Imagine, for example, the BBC used the phrase "the so-called 'United States'" when referring to the US or "the so-called 'United Kingdom'" (as mischievous regional nationalists and separatists have been doing more frequently since the divisive Brexit vote) when referring to the UK...

Hmmm I must say I've no problem at all with their use of the qualification "so-called" in describing ISIS/IS/ISIL any more than "self-styled Luhansk Peoples Republic." They're talking about non-state organisations here. True they don't do it with older paramilitary organisations and can scarcely start now as it would be considered highly partisan if they suddenly started referring to the "so called IRA" or "self styled PLO".

Impartiality in journalism is highly desirable. Getting them to stick to the facts is the imperative.

[Lionel Ritchie]

The only solution I have found is to expose oneself to as many different information outlets (of all persuasions) and try and figure out your own take on the issue.

I agree with the first part of this sentence but disagree with "figuring out ones take" and would prefer "figure out what is demonstable fact".

Part of the problem with information superhighway and the endless sources of 'news' out there is that it has emboldened a certain belief that an opinion -even a strongly held opinion -trumps (no puns) demonstrable facts. Hence we have for example Michael O'Leary or Donald Trump pronouncing they don't believe in Climate Change/Global Warming because frankly it doesn't suit their vested interests to believe in it.

[Eminence Grise]

It's one reading of the opioid crisis in America, mark12355. 29,000 deaths in 2014, 33,000 a year later. But buried within those figures are deaths from addiction to prescription opioids, manfactured by the big pharma chains - Oxycontin, Vicodin, Fentanyl. I've heard no proposals to reduce TV advertising of meds, or reign in the marketing practice of big pharma. It's easy-to-understand jingoism to point the finger at foreigners bringing death and destruction with them across the border, less so when it's national and state-level business interests, employment, tax revenue and so on.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ose-deaths-map and https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/u...-epidemic.html and https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida...-drug-abuseare worth reading.

[Wolfman]

The trouble is compared to Frump's irrational & inconsistent decision-making re. his policies, media manipulation is virtually a side issue...

The man's still a moron and completely unfit for purpose.

[DannyInvincible]

Hmmm I must say I've no problem at all with their use of the qualification "so-called" in describing ISIS/IS/ISIL any more than "self-styled Luhansk Peoples Republic." They're talking about non-state organisations here. True they don't do it with older paramilitary organisations and can scarcely start now as it would be considered highly partisan if they suddenly started referring to the "so called IRA" or "self styled PLO".

Impartiality in journalism is highly desirable. Getting them to stick to the facts is the imperative.

ISIS profess to be a state. Obviously, however, the international community refuse to recognise their assertion of statehood, which is fine, but it is of course very much a partial/political collective position, and the BBC follow suit.

This pro-Russian Novorossiyan media outlet refers to Kosovo as "the so-called Republic of Kosovo" and "self-proclaimed Kosovo", for example, but you'd (rightly) never take its claim seriously if it professed to be an impartial observer/reporter.

My fundamental gripe isn't with the BBC referring to ISIS specifically in such a manner. (ISIS aren't exactly on my list of concerns and priorities!) It's the BBC's pretence of impartiality/neutrality/objectivity that bothers or interests me more so. The manner in which the BBC refers to ISIS is just a more evident or conspicuous example of a particular BBC bias. If the BBC acknowledged its biases, I could at least appreciate the sincerity in that.

[SkStu]

It's one reading of the opioid crisis in America, mark12355. 29,000 deaths in 2014, 33,000 a year later. But buried within those figures are deaths from addiction to prescription opioids, manfactured by the big pharma chains - Oxycontin, Vicodin, Fentanyl. I've heard no proposals to reduce TV advertising of meds, or reign in the marketing practice of big pharma. It's easy-to-understand jingoism to point the finger at foreigners bringing death and destruction with them across the border, less so when it's national and state-level business interests, employment, tax revenue and so on.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ose-deaths-map and https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/u...-epidemic.html and https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida...-drug-abuseare worth reading.

Spot on about big pharma EG. Their nefarious influence has been embedded in American politics and society for far too long. When Trump ran on draining the swamp I was hoping his actions against lobbyists would go further than the executive order he signed in January. Maybe it's just Step 1.

That said, the argument for managing your border against crime and terror is as appealing as cleaning up the streets of prescription and illegal drugs. No need to play one off the other like that imo.

[SkStu]

I agree with the first part of this sentence but disagree with "figuring out ones take" and would prefer "figure out what is demonstable fact.

It amounts to pretty much the same thing in terms of what I meant. But also going back to Danny's argument that you have to acknowledge an inherent bias in almost everything you read (unless it's leaked content) and the seeming unending number of "unnamed sources inside X..." that demonstrable fact is an almost unobtainable outcome. So sometimes you have to figure out your own take based on your own bias or values. I do think it may be more pronounced when it comes to American politics and journalism - the investigative and impartial journalist still seems a more common occurrence back home. But I could be wrong, I'm totally out of touch with Irish politics these days.

[DannyInvincible]

I posted on here a couple of weeks ago about my own personal experience via the prism of the drug problem on the streets of America (and might I add, was quickly shot down for it).

I posted what I thought was a reasoned reply and posed a few questions (which you neglected to answer) in a civil manner. It was hardly a "quick shoot-down"!

It's one reading of the opioid crisis in America, mark12355. 29,000 deaths in 2014, 33,000 a year later. But buried within those figures are deaths from addiction to prescription opioids, manfactured by the big pharma chains - Oxycontin, Vicodin, Fentanyl. I've heard no proposals to reduce TV advertising of meds, or reign in the marketing practice of big pharma. It's easy-to-understand jingoism to point the finger at foreigners bringing death and destruction with them across the border, less so when it's national and state-level business interests, employment, tax revenue and so on.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ose-deaths-map and https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/u...-epidemic.html and https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida...-drug-abuseare worth reading.

That Guardian piece states that "the current [US drug overdose] epidemic has affected whiter and wealthier communities than previous drug crises", but tackling structural problems like poverty and inequality, as well as increasing investment in proper mental health support infrastructures that prioritise people's health over business interests and profit (or regulating/medicalising drug use/abuse, like how use/abuse of tobacco or alcohol, the most personally and socially harmful of drugs, is treated, rather than criminalisation), remain obvious means of effectively engaging with the issue of widespread drug abuse and self-harm. Unfortunately, such approaches are also a lot more complicated, multi-faceted and less politically or financially rewarding than simply scapegoating "the Mexicans", gangs and "morally-weak" addicts, so they tend not to be favoured by those who desire/hold power and influence.

Yesterday, I came across this piece on the increasingly publicly-visible use of "Spice" amongst Manchester city centre's homeless community; it's worth a read as it discusses and challenges how we as a society commonly view and approach drug issues.

Recent media reports pointing to the toxic effects of Spice on users and communities have called for immediate action from local and government authorities to mitigate the damages and sanitise public space. But years of state-enforced austerity reveal so-called ‘drug epidemics’ as just the symptom of deeper, structural economic problems and inequalities. Not least, also of a general condescending attitude towards the poor and less fortunate.

...

Collective anxieties also coagulate around underclass victims and drug cultures but in a different symbolic register. Media language depicts users of the ‘harder’ drugs that leave visible marks on the body and generally intersect with poverty and abject living conditions – heroin, crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine and now Spice – as risk-bearing ‘outsiders’. Likening Spice users to ‘zombies’ (empty shells devoid of reason and own will) provides a facile scapegoat in the person of the morally weak addict whose ‘diseased brain’ is to blame for his/her descent into misery, obscuring the larger socio-economic conditions that push the already vulnerable over the edge. Unlike ‘valuable’ youth worth protecting and preserving, rough sleepers, imprisoned offenders or lower class welfare recipients are more easily portrayed as less rational and superfluous. They also appear to be more disposable, their condition easier to dismiss as the result of weak character and poor choices.

Without doubt, Spice and other NPS have caused considerable harm to users and others around them. This should not shove aside, however, a more robust and critical debate about welfare cuts and the systematic dismantling of social security nets. Such measures have seen millions struggling to make ends meet or relying on food banks for survival and many plunging into mental health problems. Slashing entitlements as the fix-all dogma in public policy today risks further aggravating all these problems. We should never accept a society where drugs and other ways of coping with adverse circumstances are the prime source of moral outrage, whereas homelessness, extreme poverty and lack of life opportunities are perfectly acceptable.

[DannyInvincible]

Another worthwhile (UK-focused) piece that challenges the hypocrisy of current drug policy whilst advocating reform: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/cara...b_8826794.html

I chose to get drunk last night so my hangover is ‘legitimate’ in the eyes of society. But many people prefer different ways of letting it all hang out - a joint, a line or a pill. Just to help make the party pop that little bit more. We call them recreational drug users. There are at least three million of them in the UK and chances are you are one of them - though you don’t think of yourself that way. You smoke a bit of weed now and again because it never hurt anyone - and in fact, it might mean you drink less and spare yourself a hangover. Or you pop a pill because it makes you love everything. And like you want to dance. It’s mostly harmless. And it’s fun.

Which it is. Until you get arrested for it. Then it’s not so much fun. But the chances are, you won’t get arrested. Certainly if you’re white and middle class. The people who are far more likely to get caught with drugs (though not necessarily more likely to use them) are young, poor or black.

This is just one of the many insidious consequences of current drug policy - also known as the ‘war on drugs’. It’s not actually a war on drugs. It’s a war on some people, who use some drugs.

Professor David Nutt (a drug policy advisor to the UK government until he was sacked from the role for encouraging a rational, evidence-based approach instead of arbitrary prohibition) is also worth listening to when it comes to commentary on drugs and drug policy.

This is a general but very informative talk he gave at the University of Otago in Wellington, New Zealand a few years ago:



And here's a video interview of Nutt, entitled 'The Truth About Drugs', by London Real: https://londonreal.tv/professor-davi...h-about-drugs/

He's asked about the situation in the US at 1h15m22s and specifically discusses decriminalising cannabis as a means of curtailing alcohol consumption from 1h27m03s and as a means of curtailing dependence upon more dangerous opioid painkillers (like Fentanyl) from 58m56s.

[DannyInvincible]

After Sweden, it looks like Germany and the Dortmund football team bus is the next victim of random acts of terrorism in the name of Islam.

According to the Independent (UK), the Dortmund bus attack "may have been carried out by right-wing extremists who attempted to frame Islamists": http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7685281.html

"The explosives in the pipe bombs, which were filled with metal pins, might have come from the stocks of the German armed forces but that's still being checked," newspaper Welt am Sonntag cited a source involved in the investigation as saying.

...

A third claim has now been sent to the German newspaper Tagesspiegel, from a far-right group claiming it was behind the triple bombing in Dortmund and threatening further attacks.

...

“The overall circumstances lead us to believe it's most likely that the perpetrators have a right-wing background,” an investigator told Bild.

Why a right-ring German nationalist group would admit that the attack was a false flag if they had carried it out in an attempt to frame Islamists, I'm not sure, but investigators, who have "significant doubts" over the veracity of the letters left at the scene that originally seemed to suggest Islamists were responsible, nevertheless do appear to be now taking seriously the possibility that it was a right-wing nationalist organisation who were behind it.