Green Party US Stein/Baraka Updates For August 20th, 2016

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!mrmilitantnegro CpXaW-tWAAATJwq

From truthdig.com & Emma Niles:

Green Party Ticket Lays Out Its Programs, Denounces ‘Murdering From the Sky’

On Thursday, Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein and running mate Ajamu Baraka joined Alan Colmes for a radio interview on Fox News’ “The Alan Colmes Show.” The Green Party ticket only recently began receiving mainstream media coverage, and Stein and Baraka explain many aspects of the Green Party ticket to potentially unfamiliar listeners.

First, Colmes asks about the impact of the “Nader effect,” or the fear that voting for third-party candidates will split up the liberal vote and cause the Democratic Party to lose. “These are the most unpopular and disliked candidates in our history,” Stein responds. “People are saying ‘we’ve had enough of those guys.’ ”


The conversation then turns to a comparison of Democratic Party and Green Party ideals. “We’re clearly more progressive than anybody else,” Baraka notes. Stein goes into more specifics, saying:

We overlap a lot in terms of what Hillary says, but it’s what Hillary does is the question. Hillary’s track record is for favoring the banks and hurting everyday people—like destroying the social safety net, the aid to families with dependent children. Hillary Clinton led the charge. They led the charge for NAFTA, which sent our jobs overseas; they led the charge for Wall Street deregulation that led the way to the meltdown of 9 million jobs and 5 million homes. And look at what Hillary’s doing right now. … Hillary can talk the talk, but she has decades of the walk behind her.

Baraka and Stein add that the lack of mainstream media coverage of their campaign is problematic, especially in regard to the presidential debates. “[T]he Commission on Presidential Debates is a fraud,” Stein states. “The American people not only have a right to vote, we have a right to know who we can vote for, and there are actually four candidates in this election who will be on the ballot for just about every voter.”

Colmes presses Stein on her proposal for eliminating student debt and improving the economy. “If you want to reduce the deficit and the debt, the only way you can do that is through public investments,” Stein says, defending her proposal of a stimulus package to kick-start the economy.

“Higher education is a right,” she continues, leading Colmes to grill her for details on her plan for student-debt forgiveness. Stein explains that the “Federal Reserve can create the money” and student debt would be erased by “expanding the money supply,” a move she says is akin to the financial bailout of Wall Street.

“Wouldn’t that lower the cost of a dollar, if you keep printing more money?” Colmes asks. “If the economy is truly expanding and becoming more productive,” Stein responds, “then it essentially takes care of itself.”

Stein and Baraka also explain how they would change U.S. foreign policy. “We will be miles ahead of the game just for coming in without owing favors in return to the weapons industry, the war contractors [and] the fossil fuel industry,” Stein declares. Adding to this idea, Baraka says that foreign policy under past Democratic leaders has been a failure. “One can argue Barack Obama is in many ways more aggressive than George W. Bush,” Baraka says, to Colmes’ astonishment. “We criticized George W. Bush because he was involved in torturing suspects, but Barack Obama—he avoided that by murdering them from the sky.”

Colmes responds, “You say murdering suspects from the sky—drone strikes?”

“Yeah, drones, illegal programs, a drone strike against people who the administration would—because of a secret process that would determine a so-called threat to the U.S.—they would kill that person,” Baraka continues. “And they … expanded that by even murdering U.S. citizens without due process.”

Thank you Emma Niles & truthdig.com

Stein & Baraka to Bernie Sanders Supporters: Vote Green & Abandon the Party of War and Wall Street

Published on Aug 18, 2016

http://democracynow.org – For months, Jill Stein of the Green Party attempted to push Bernie Sanders to join the Green ticket. While he ignored the call, Stein is now reaching out to Sanders supporters for their votes in November. But is Stein afraid of tipping the election toward Donald Trump? We get response from her and running mate Ajamu Baraka.

From The Denver Post.com:

Green Party’s Jill Stein to join presidential campaign trail in Colorado

Two-day trip will visit Denver and Boulder in effort to appeal to Bernie Sanders supporters

By | jfrank@denverpost.com

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is making a campaign swing through Colorado later this month.

Stein is expected to draw a crowd as she appeals to one-time Bernie Sanders supporters in a state that overwhelmingly voted for the Vermont senator at the 2016 caucus. The latest poll shows Stein with 7 percent support in Colorado, far better than her showing in the 2012 election when she won just 0.3 percent, or 7,508 votes.

Dr. Jill Stein, presumptive Green Party presidential nominee, speaks at a rally in Philadelphia, Wednesday, July 27, 2016, during the third day of the Democratic National Convention. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Dr. Jill Stein, presumptive Green Party presidential nominee, speaks at a rally in Philadelphia, Wednesday, July 27, 2016, during the third day of the Democratic National Convention. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

In a CNN town hall earlier this week, Stein rejected the suggestion that her bid will help boost Donald Trump.

“I will have trouble sleeping at night if Donald Trump is elected. I will also have trouble sleeping at night if Hillary Clinton is elected. And as despicable as Donald Trump’s words are, I find Hillary Clinton’s actions and track record is very troubling,” she said.

Colorado is ripe territory for third-party candidates, as the state didn’t favor either of the major party nominees in the primary season. On the Democratic side, Sanders trumped Hillary Clinton by 19 points in the April contest and some of his supporters remain concerned about supporting the former secretary of state.

Stein is looking to tap into the discontent on her two-day trip. The retired Massachusetts physician and political activist will hold a rally and march for “peace, climate and justice” at noon Aug. 27 in Colorado Springs and give a speech All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church across town at 1:30 p.m., according to the campaign.

In the evening, Stein will travel to Fort Collins for an 6:30 p.m. “meet and greet” at Avogadro’s Number, a downtown nightlife spot.

Stein is scheduled to hold another “meet and greet” Mercury Cafe in Denver at 1 p.m. Aug. 28 and then attend a 7 p.m. fundraiser at Glenn Miller Ballroom on the University of Colorado campus. An RSVP is requested for all the events.

The Green Party candidate’s campaign is also touching on a number of hot-button issues in Colorado. Stein supports a $15 minimum wage, a public health care system and wants to ban fracking for natural gas.

Thank you The Denver Post.com & 

George Galloway Interview with Jill Stein Green Party Candidate for US President

Published on Jun 26, 2016

Support Jill Stein’s people-powered campaign! https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/d…

George Galloway Interview with Jill Stein Green Party Candidate for US President

Jill Stein Should Be Part of a 4-Way Presidential Debate

Even those who do not back third-party contenders should recognize that open debates are vital for robust democracy.

 After the Republicans and Democrats finished their conventions in late July, the Green Party gathered this month to nominate Dr. Jill Stein for the presidency. Stein’s campaign—with her party on ballot lines in the majority of states, and her poll numbers surging ahead of Green numbers from recent presidential elections—has the potential to be a breakthrough bid for the Greens, and for a more robust democracy.

Stein recognized the prospect in an optimistic yet urgent acceptance speech in which she spoke of “unstoppable momentum for transformational change.” The candidate who talks of ushering in a “Green New Deal” told the Green Party Convention that the party has “an historic opportunity, an historic responsibility to be the agents of that change. As Martin Luther King said, ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.’ I know that arc is bending in us, and through us. And we are actors in something much bigger than us as we struggle for justice, for peace, for community, for healing.”

Stein’s appeal drew an enthusiastic response from her supporters, and she gained a good deal of media attention.

But there are no guarantees that her candidacy will succeed—along with that of Libertarian Gary Johnson—in clearing the way for the more diverse and competitive multi-party politics that is common in other countries but relatively rare in the recent history of the United States.

For that to happen, supporters of the Green nominee, as well as progressives who will be inclined to back Democrat Hillary Clinton in order to block the candidacy of Republican Donald Trump but who still want a broader debate, will have to advocate for something that is rare in presidential politics: fair play.

Stein is not just up against the Democratic and Republican nominees. She is up against a rigid two-party system that erects high barriers to those who seek to open up the process.


 Candidates who are on enough ballot lines to be elected president should be included in the debates.”

It is uncommon for independent and third-party candidates to get over and around those barriers.

But this is an uncommon year in American politics. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has already getting close to the political high ground where a third-party candidate is treated as seriously as the nominee of one of the two major parties. And Stein is climbing as well, having just appeared on CNN for a prime-time special highlighting her candidacy. Stein’s progress is significant because, in order to have a real debate in American politics, it is vital to include voices from across the political spectrum.

A debate featuring Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Donald Trump, and Johnson would represent an improvement on what we have seen in recent presidential races.

A debate between Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein would represent an even greater improvement.

Could it happen?

The Green nominee’s approach, and the year in which she is running, make it possible to imagine that she could find a place on this fall’s debate stages.

Even people who do not intend to vote Green or Libertarian should want credible contenders to be heard.”

Stein is making her second bid for the presidency, which is an asset. Third-party candidates have historically benefited from making multiple bids. A century ago, Eugene Victor Debs made five runs for the presidency on the Socialist Party line, while Norman Thomas made six. History records that neither man won the nation’s top job. But their high-profile campaigns popularized “radical” ideas such as Social Security programs for the elderly and extending civil rights to all Americans.

Stein is mounting her bid in a moment of great political volatility, which is significant. Third parties often record strong showings in turbulent times. Debs won almost one million votes in 1920, when he ran from the jail cell to which he had been confined during the “Red Scare” assault on civil liberties following World War I. Thomas received almost as many votes in 1932, in the first presidential election of the Great Depression era.

No one knows what vote Stein may get this time, though polls suggest that both she and Johnson are running far better this year than in 2012. (The Libertarian won 1,275,951 votes that year, while the Green received 469,628.) A number of polls have Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, in double digits; and Stein has frequently been at 5 percent in recent national surveys. (In states such as California and Colorado, her numbers have been even higher.)


Does this mean that Johnson or Stein could “take off” and be elected president? History is not generous in this regard; the last time a third-party candidate surpassed either major-party contender was in 1912, when former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (running as a “Bull Moose” Progressive) finished ahead of Republican President William Howard Taft. Both men lost that year to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and “major” parties have dominated the top two spots ever since.

This year, both Johnson and Stein will face objections from those who fear that support for alternative candidacies might “spoil” the election by drawing votes away from major-party contenders. There is nothing wrong with this discussion; it is entirely reasonable, for instance, for progressives who are frightened by Trump’s candidacy to urge voters to support Clinton as the strongest alternative to an extremist Republican. There can and should be serious discourse about how to approach the 2016 election. But that does not mean that electoral options should be limited. The United States needs a broader politics, and the prospect that Johnson and Stein could open up the process this year ought to excite small-“d” democrats.

Even people who do not intend to vote Green or Libertarian can and should support efforts by credible contenders to secure ballot positions in states that have historically made it hard for third-party contenders to compete. It is simply wrong that the United States does not have universal election rules, creating a circumstance where obtaining ballot status is easy in some states and daunting in others.

As important as ballot access is debate access.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, which was set up by leaders of the two major parties with an eye toward controlling and constraining the most important exchanges during presidential elections, will not make things easy. Johnson is closer to the threshold that the CPD has established for debate participation—a steady 15 percent in the polls—and he is already getting the lion’s share of attention as debates about the debates ramp up.

A functional democracy should be able to find room for a real debate involving a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, and a Green. As Stein’s campaign argues, correctly, “Voters have a right to hear directly from their possible choices for the highest office in the land.”

Unfortunately, that may not happen. It is quite possible—arguably likely—that both Stein and Johnson could be ruled out of the debates under the arbitrary rules established by the CPD.

That would be a travesty. And it does not have to happen.

As Reason magazine’s Matt Welch suggests, the commission should tweak its rules “if for no other reason than to fulfill its stated mission, which reads in part ‘to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.’”

“You cannot provide the best possible information by limiting the debate to Trump and Clinton—the two most disliked presidential nominees in modern history,” argues Welch. “Besides, even with our seemingly inevitable two-party sorting process, a full 20 percent of registered voters consistently indicate that they will not be pulling the lever for either D or R. Johnson and Stein, meanwhile, have combined for the same national polling percentage—just a tick below 13—both before and after the major-party conventions, suggesting that the traditional halving of third-party polls between summer and election day might not be happening this campaign season.”

The CPD can and will set baseline standards for debate participation. But those standards should err on the side of more debate, not less. The good basic approach would be to include candidates who have qualified for enough state ballots to win 270 electoral votes—the threshold for winning the presidency. Getting on that many ballot lines requires seriousness and a measurable level of support nationally, and those candidates who achieve that should be included, at the very least, in the first debate.

If the CPD insists on a more rigid standard (as is likely), then a 5 percent polling threshold—far higher than was required to gain a place on the main stage of this year’s Republican and Democratic debates—would be dramatically more reasonable than the current 15 percent threshold.

The Libertarians and the Greens will meet the ballot-line standard. And both parties can point to recent polls where they have cleared the 5 percent threshold. That should be sufficient to make room for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein on this fall’s debate stages.

Thank you John Nichols & The Nation.com


From Counterpunch.org:

Roaming Charges: Prime Time Green

Give CNN just a little credit. On Wednesday night, the cable network hosted a Town Hall featuring Green Party candidates Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka. In those 90 Prime Time minutes, Stein and Baraka presented a clearer picture of the realities and consequences of US foreign policy and militarism than we heard from Bernie Sanders in a year’s worth of speeches.

Americans who tuned in heard some things that are rarely mentioned in the mainstream media: a sober critique of the US’s malign relationship to the government of Israel, forthright calls for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the end of killer drone strikes, the closure of all 800-plus overseas military bases and an end to interventionist wars. The entire Town Hall session was the political equivalent of George Carlin’s the seven things you can’t say on TV.

The Green Team deftly navigated the treacherous shoals of Cuomo’s questions. For most of the night, Cuomo played the role of a Clinton troll, trying to trip up Stein and Baraka with quotes ripped out of context and stale slanders planted by Democratic Party operatives. Despite all evidence to the contrary, it seems that Ralph Nader will forever be blamed for costing Al Gore the 2000 election. So he zeroed in on Stein, asking her how she could sleep at night if, like Nader, she ended up tipping the election to Trump. Stein didn’t blink, saying: “I would have trouble sleeping at night if Trump was elected. I would also have trouble sleeping if Hillary Clinton was elected.”

Stein also easily swatted down the smear now being furiously spread by the Clintonoids that she is opposed to childhood vaccinations and that she is “anti-science.” It’s a ludicrous charge against a physician and one that has no basis in fact, as Stein forcefully demonstrated. Still, I hope this assault doesn’t discourage Stein and Baraka from at some point offering a critical analysis of the economic and political uses of science in the service of war and profit.


One of the chief purveyors of this bilge of misinformation is a previously obscure fellow named Robert Naiman, who runs a nearly invisible group called Just Foreign Policy. Naiman was caught red-handed (so to speak) when his junk mail made its way to the inbox of John Stauber, author of Toxic Sludge is Good for You and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one.

Slandering Stein and the Greens for being “Trotskyites” (or “Trokskyites,” in Naiman’s quaint verbiage) is as intellectually vapid as it is vile. Everyone knows that most of Leon’s former disciples in the US have long since morphed into neocons and thus can be spotted in Georgetown cafes polishing their resumés for slots on Hillary’s foreign policy team.

“Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein,” John Stauber told me. “These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq.  So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist.  Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance.”

The hypocrisy of the Clintonoids is almost as audacious as their dissemination of lies about Jill Stein. Of course, their champion, the “pro-science” Hillary Clinton, ignores scientific facts and assessments whenever such considerations prove to be an even minor inconvenience to the headlong pursuit of her corporate agenda (cf, fracking).

“People may wonder why suddenly everyone was saying Jill Stein is anti-vax — now we know it was a coordinated campaign,” Zeese told me. “Obviously, it also happens in the media because all of a sudden multiple news outlets were reporting the same thing. Had Stein said something that all these media outlets saw and ‘reported’ on — no, she had not said anything anti-vax, but they were coordinated. It was a planned slander attack.”

Despite Clinton’s apparent lead in the polls, there’s a palpable sense of desperation in the air, as if her support is so soft that Hillary could sink another 10 points in the wake of one more email dump from Wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0. This explains why her surrogates are reaching so deeply into their bag of dirty tricks. The red-baiting of Stein and Baraka is a perfect expression of the Clinton machine’s political and moral bankruptcy.

Birth of a Hit Job

You just knew some kind of campaign to sabotage Nate Parker’s sizzling film about Nat Turner’s slave revolt, “Birth of a Nation,” was going to erupt sooner or later.

One might have anticipated that the attack on Parker’s hotly anticipated film might have originated from Breitbart, the Drudge Report or the Weekly Standard. Oh, no. The hit piece was launched from the homepage of the New York Times, which dredged up a 17-year-old allegation of rape against Parker, who was then a student at Penn State University. Parker was charged with rape, went to trial and was acquitted by a jury. The accuser in the case committed suicide more than a decade later. The insinuations at work in the Times story are that Parker somehow escaped conviction on a technicality (a rarity for a black man accused of raping a white woman), that the accuser killed herself because she couldn’t deal with the trauma of the rape and that you should boycott “Birth of a Nation” because it’s a film made by a remorseless rapist.

I don’t know the facts of the Nate Parker rape case and you won’t learn them from this long NYT story, which treads in whispers, rumors and manufactured outrage. We don’t learn why Parker was acquitted or much at all about course of the trial. We don’t learn why his roommate’s conviction was overturned on appeal. We don’t know why the accuser committed suicide 10 years later. We don’t know why the accuser’s family believes that a rival studio leaked the original story toVariety. We don’t learn anything at all except that there is now a furious effort to discredit the film and disparage its director.

Perhaps Parker deserves the scorn. I don’t know and neither will you from reading this mendacious piece. Even if one accepts the worst interpretation of the facts of the case (the jury didn’t), how does that invalidate the film? Does the New York Times really want us to believe that black women weren’t regularly raped in the southern slave states? That the torments and torture endured by slaves such as Nat Turner didn’t take place? That Turner’s fierce rebellion against the criminals who abused him and his comrades didn’t ignite after suffering a long history of unspeakable wrongs? This story an object lesson in character assassination NYT’s style.

Think Positive

I’ve been thinking about what it would take to finally abolish the anti-democratic Electoral College. Probably an election where Trump wins the popular vote by 400,000 votes and loses in the Electoral College by more than 30 votes. The Right wouldn’t tolerate that result, the way Gore and the Democrats did in 2000, when the Ozone Man won the popular vote nationally, probably won Florida and yet meekly swallowed the unconstitutional ruling of the Supreme Court handing the election to Bush. There’s a potentially positive result from a HRC victory to load into your Lesser Evil Voting calculator.

If the Feet Fit

The current net worth of George W. Bush, the man Ann Richards lampooned as being “born with a silver foot in his mouth,” is: $23 million. Net worth of the perpetually poor-mouthing Clintons: $111 million. Those must be platinum feet Hillary and Bill are munching on…

False Flag Email Alert!

Speaking of Democratic millionaires, Nancy Pelosi (Net Worth: $58 million) is launching a pre-emptive strike against the next leak of DNC emails. Pelosi is telling anyone who will listen that the next batch of emails exposing political trickery and corruption by party elites willlikely be fakes, a false flag October Surprise generated by Russian intelligence to cripple the Democratic Party and help secure the election for Trump. The patsy in Pelosi’s conspiracy theory will no doubt be Julian Assange, for uploading these malicious cyber missives from his hidden vantage on GrassyKnoll.com. Assange, of course, is Number Two on the Democrats’ Wanted: Dead or Alive List, lagging behind Vladimir Putin and but still slightly ahead of Bashir Assad.

The Courage of Chou

This week Howard Lisnoff wrote an excellent and widely read piece on Hillary and her intellectual Svengali, Henry Kissinger. But at this moment I’m more interested in the photo that either Nathaniel St. Clair or Joshua Frank selected to illustrate Howard’s story. The photo depicts Nixon toasting Chou En-Lai, probably the greatest diplomat of our time, during the president’s visit to Peking. Even Nixon and Kissinger’s enemies tend to effusively praise the shameless duo’s “courage” for opening the long-shuttered door to China. But that 1972 trip didn’t take courage. It was the fruition a business deal. All the real fortitude during those negotiations was displayed by Chou. After all, he was dealing with a nation whose intelligence elites had tried to assassinate him only a few years earlier, when agents of the CIA placed a bomb on the plane he was meant to take to the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1955. (See ND Jayaprakash’s definitive account: Why Did the CIA Try to Kill Chou En-Lai?) And who was vice-president and chief Cold Warrior at the time of the bombing? Yep, the man Chou is toasting–Richard M. Nixon.

Jerry’s Flint

According to this scandalous report in Mother Jones by Tom Philpott, more than 200,000 people are drinking toxic water in California’s central valley. Yet we hear almost nothing about it. Could this be because, unlike in Michigan, California has a Democratic governor, who is soft on Big Ag, and most of the poisoned are migrant workers?

Late for the Sky

Speaking of the environmental politics of Jerry Brown, the towering smoke plumes from the rampaging Blue Cut fire near San Bernardino have merged with the normal stew of particulate matter and ozone to render the air in the Los Angeles Basin about as dangerous as Delhi’s on an average day. Brown, the man the Democratic Party selected to deliver a tepid message on climate change at their convention, is wholly owned by big oil and the fracking industry. It’s no surprise, therefore, to find that California contains 8 of the 10 worst zones for air quality in the United States.  The toxic air in California accounts for more than 21,000 premature deaths a year, 40 percent of the total for the entire nation. The health care costs associated with treating victims of California’s dirty air top $200 million every year. Don’t worry, though, help is on the way. I’ve heard from someone who is in a position to know that one of Trump’s first acts as president, if elected, will be to issue an Executive Order declaring smog to be a vegetable.

Trading Places

Obama heads the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is ostensibly in opposition to the TPP. Yet, Obama is now traveling across what was once considered the “battleground” region, hustling votes for Hillary while simultaneously pimping for the TPP. Work out that political syllogism. When Bernie announced his support for HRC based on the victories he’s secured in the Democratic Party platform, and from Hillary herself, I said that those commitments had been “written in disappearing ink.” But even I didn’t think those mighty pledges would begin to fade from public view until after the election. Obama’s blatant huckstering for the TPP is a sure sign that the neo-Democrats feel confident of total victory and can stick their real agenda in the face of the Left during the campaign with impunity. Look for ‘Pass the TPP’ signs at Hillary rallies in October.

The Politics of Weed

While Obama’s DEA wants desperately to continue the war on pot, to justify its own existence and maximize its budget (See Jesse Ventura’s piece in today’s CounterPunch), the nation as a whole seems to be waking up. A new poll from Gallup shows that 58 percent of Americans believe that “the use of marijuana should be made legal.” In California, upwards of 60 percent of registered voters say that they will vote to approve a November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use under California law and allow government to tax its retail sales.

Arise from your slumbers Barry-O, or risk being swept away by the rising bongwaters of history.

Looking Through You

The latest NBC Poll shows that only 11% view HRC as ‘honest and trustworthy.’ The news isn’t any better from Democrats, where only12% view her as ‘honest and trustworthy’–and they still plan to vote for her, knowing full well that she’ll screw them over. Only possible conclusion: Democrats  like being screwed over.

Shit on the Sacred Slopes

In order to manufacture something for skiers to ski on in climate change ravaged northern Arizona, the City of Flagstaff has been “making snow” by using water from human sewage and then spraying it on the San Francisco Peaks, one of the holiest sites of the Hopi (and 13 other tribes). The Hopi have fiercely fought this odious desecration for years. The courts remain deaf to their pleas. The legal battle hasended. Rest assured, the Hopi will find other ways to fight.

The Hunted and the Hunter

A couple of years after Hemingway blew his brains out with a two-barreled shotgun he used to shoot pigeons, a young Hunter S. Thompson showed up at the late writer’s cabin in the shadow of Idaho’s Sawtooth Mountains on assignment for the National Observer. His mission: explain why Hemingway killed himself. Thompson’s story proved to be a rather perfunctory exercise in speculative psychology. (You can read it in his collection The Great Shark Hunt.)

While in Ketchum, the good Doctor became fixated by a large pair of elk antlers that Hemingway had nailed above the front door of his cabin and in true Gonzo-style Thompson swiped the animal relicts and trundled them back to his garage in Woody Creek, Colorado, where they hung for decades among his dartboards and explosive devices. Then last week, Thompson’s wife, Anita, returned them to the Hemingway cabin, which is now owned by the Nature Conservancy. Anita Thompson said that she brought the antlers back to Idaho because Hunter had felt guilty about keeping them.

I don’t believe Hunter regretted this escapade for a minute. He boasted about the heist to friends for many years. If Anita wanted to restore the karmic balance, she should have returned them to the mountain meadow from which Hemingway stole them at rifle point. As my friend Michael Donnelly quipped: “I wouldn’t give the Nature Conspiracy a pile of elk dung!”

Bernie’s Last Tape

My pal Carl G. Estabrook, looking very trim, devotes the first few minutes of his must watch show on politics, culture and the media out of Champaign-Urbana, News From Neptune (the antecedent is Chomsky not Hendrix or William Morris) to a reading of my little drama, “Bernie’s Last Tape.” Carl has actually performed Beckett, to great acclaim, I’ve just slandered Lonesome Sam’s reputation through parody. (Someone should stop me before I write the sequel: Bernie’s Last Krapp.)

Sound Grammar

What I’m listening to this week:

1/ Devastatin’ Rhythm by David Vest

2/ Protest by Bunny Wailer

3/ Brand New Blues by Cyril Neville (Check out his blistering post-Katrina version of Marley’s Slave Driver.)

4/ The Deepest Lake by Dengue Fever

5/ Silver City by Sarah Borges

The World Through a One-Way Mirror

“We are beckoned to see the world through a one-way mirror, as if we are threatened and innocent and the rest of humanity is threatening, or wretched, or expendable. Our memory is struggling to rescue the truth that human rights were not handed down as privileges from a parliament, or a boardroom, or an institution, but that peace is only possible with justice and with information that gives us the power to act justly.”

— John Pilger

Thank you Counterpunch.org & 

Jeffrey St. Clair is editor of CounterPunch. His new book is Killing Trayvons: an Anthology of American Violence (with JoAnn Wypijewski and Kevin Alexander Gray). He can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net.

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein in New York on Aug. 18, 2016. (Photo: Sara Snyder, for USA TODAY)

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein in New York on Aug. 18, 2016.
(Photo: Sara Snyder, for USA TODAY)


Reply At Your Own Risk. Leave The Dumbfuckery At The Door.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s