Hey! Good Evening!

This evening's music features country blues singer and guitarist Mississippi John Hurt. Enjoy!

"Humanity today is like a waking dreamer, caught between the fantasies of sleep and the chaos of the real world. The mind seeks but cannot find the precise place and hour. We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. We thrash about. We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of life."

-- E. O. Wilson

News and Opinion

Israeli election ad boasts Gaza bombed back to “stone ages”

Benny Gantz, the former Israeli army chief, is bragging about how much killing and destruction he committed in Gaza in a series of campaign videos for his new political party posted on YouTube and social media over the weekend. Gantz hopes to replace Benjamin Netanyahu as Israel’s prime minister in elections scheduled for April.

One of the videos, above, shows drone footage of a devastated neighborhood in Gaza in August 2014, following Israel’s 51-day assault on the territory. The video’s title includes the words “Parts of Gaza were returned to the stone ages.” Against the swell of dramatic music, captions on screen announce, “6,231 targets destroyed,” and “1,364 terrorists killed.” The ad then claims that this carnage brought “3.5 years of quiet.”

A second video displays a kill-counter on screen racking up bodies until the number 1,364 is reached. In the background Palestinians are seen conducting funerals. The video is another depraved celebration of killing. All the videos contain the words “Only the strong win.” And they close with Gantz’s campaign slogan “Israel before everything,” which could just as well be translated as the Trumpian “Israel first.”

In fact, the 2014 attack on Gaza, which Gantz commanded, killed 2,251 Palestinians, including 1,462 civilians, among them 551 children, according to an independent investigation commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. More than 11,000 Palestinians, including 3,540 women and 3,436 children, were injured with almost 10 percent suffering permanent disabilities. Thus according to the independent report, fewer than 800, or about a third of those killed, were combatants – far fewer than the 1,364 “terrorists” about whose killing Gantz brags.

This means that Gantz considers Palestinian civilians to be legitimate targets – effectively an admission to war crimes.

A third video brags about the 2012 extrajudicial execution of Ahmad al-Jabari, a Hamas military leader in Gaza. The final video, after three others celebrating slaughter, presents Gantz as a statesman who hopes for “peace.”

'Strategic Threat' To Israel - Progressives Lose Fear Of Speaking Out On Palestine

The gates of hell opened and, on Sunday, the New York Times published a column that criticized the Apartheid policy of the Zionist entity in the Middle East.

Time to Break the Silence on Palestine
Martin Luther King Jr. courageously spoke out about the Vietnam War. We must do the same when it comes to this grave injustice of our time.

Written by Michelle Alexander, a civil rights lawyer, author of The New Jim Crow, and now a regular NYT columnist, the piece reaches back to Martin Luther King. It compares MLK's courageous early opposition to the Vietnam War to today's reluctance of people who are 'progressives except for Palestine' to oppose the policies of the so called Jewish State:

It was a lonely, moral stance. And it cost him. But it set an example of what is required of us if we are to honor our deepest values in times of crisis, even when silence would better serve our personal interests or the communities and causes we hold most dear. It’s what I think about when I go over the excuses and rationalizations that have kept me largely silent on one of the great moral challenges of our time: the crisis in Israel-Palestine.

Alexander appeals to those who support civil rights to speak out against the Zionist Apartheid policies:

We must not tolerate Israel’s refusal even to discuss the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, as prescribed by United Nations resolutions, and we ought to question the U.S. government funds that have supported multiple hostilities and thousands of civilian casualties in Gaza, as well as the $38 billion the U.S. government has pledged in military support to Israel.

And finally, we must, with as much courage and conviction as we can muster, speak out against the system of legal discrimination that exists inside Israel, a system complete with, according to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinians — such as the new nation-state law that says explicitly that only Jewish Israelis have the right of self-determination in Israel, ignoring the rights of the Arab minority that makes up 21 percent of the population.

... The Zionist lobby will surely try to press the New York Times, which usually advances absurdly pro-Zionist positions, to fire Michelle Alexander or to at least censor what she writes. If neither happens the lobby will have a big problem. The column, and that fact that it was published by the New York Times, changes the Overton window on Palestine. Positions that were earlier condemned or smeared as anti-semitic, will now become discussable.

[In a tweet Israeli MK and Deputy Minister for Diplomacy writes:] By equating support for Israel with support for the Vietnam War and opposition to MLK, Alexander dangerously delegitimizates us. It’s a strategic threat and Israel must treat it as such. ... That Oren calls Alexander a 'strategic threat' means that she must be destroyed. Oren will use all his might and secret organizations to defeat the 'threat'. The Zionists will surely pull out the big guns against her. They will smear, intimidate and harass Alexander. The will threaten the NYT with 'consequences'.

Will they win?

Syria threatens to ‘strike Tel Aviv airport’ if UN fails to stop Israeli air raids

Guantánamo Prisoner Says Judge Used Pro-Government Rulings to Curry Favor With the Justice Department

Defense attorneys for the accused mastermind of the USS Cole bombing asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday for a fresh start to his trial, alleging that a glaring instance of judicial misconduct tainted their client’s military tribunal. Lawyers for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri asked the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to take the extraordinary step of vacating decisions made under Air Force Col. Vance Spath, the military judge who was in charge of Nashiri’s case between 2014 and Spath’s retirement from the military last year.

They argued that Spath presided over the case with an undisclosed conflict of interest, noting that for years, he was angling for an appointment with the Justice Department while advancing Nashiri’s case on terms favorable to the prosecution team. In November, the Miami Herald revealed that Spath had applied for a job with the Justice Department in 2015 to work as an immigration judge. At the same time, he was presiding over Nashiri’s case, in which Justice Department lawyers were part of the prosecution team seeking the death penalty.

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been an outspoken supporter of Guantánamo’s military commissions. In 2017, he called the prison “a very fine place” to put new terror suspects, and he reportedly intervened last year to scuttle a plea deal that would spare 9/11 defendants the death penalty.

According to defense filings, in the years after he applied for an appointment with the Justice Department, Spath touted his “aggressive trial schedule,” while accusing Nashiri’s defense lawyers of creating “constant roadblocks, recalcitrance, and disobeyance of orders.” Michel Paradis, a Defense Department counsel representing Nashiri, told the three-judge panel that Spath had “angled for an appointment from the Attorney General at the same time the Attorney General and Department of Justice had substantial interest in [Nashiri’s] case,” and that “he traded on the fact that he was the judge in this capital case for his own personal gain.” Paradis also said that Spath had used one of his rulings favorable to the Justice Department in Nashiri’s case as a writing sample for his application. Spath ultimately got the job and was sworn in as an immigration judge in September.

Joseph F. Palmer, an attorney for the Justice Department, told the three-judge panel on Tuesday that it was normal for military judges to seek employment while trying a case. ... Alka Pradhan, a human rights lawyer who represents a different Guantánamo detainee, told The Intercept that it wasn’t unusual for a military judge to seek employment elsewhere, but that didn’t excuse the conflict of interest.

Make No Mistake: ISIS Needs the U.S. to Survive

“No war is over until the enemy says it’s over,” James Mattis, the former Marine Corps General and recently resigned secretary of state, is quoted as saying. “We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.” Mattis’s statement was made in 2012, well before President Donald Trump, in a surprise announcement on December 19, declared victory over the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, better known as ISIS. ...

But a recent attack on U.S. forces in Syria, carried out by a suicide bomber which ISIS claimed was operating on its behalf, has led to an outpouring of criticism of Trump’s precipitous decision. “ISIS has claimed credit for killing American troops in Syria today,” Senator Marco Rubio tweeted in the aftermath of the attack. “If true, it is a tragic reminder that ISIS not been defeated and is transforming into a dangerous insurgency. This is no time to retreat from the fight against ISIS. Will only embolden & strengthen them.” While Mattis’s words were a cautionary warning about premature celebration, Rubio’s sentiments, along with those who share his point of view, miss the point of the ISIS attack altogether. The U.S. was on the verge of withdrawing from Syria, something Rubio and others believe would give ISIS a victory. Why, then, would ISIS attack American forces in such a high-profile manner, creating the condition for a reversal of Trump’s decision and keeping the U.S. military in Syria for the foreseeable future? ...

The leadership of ISIS knows that its days are numbered once the Syrian government can turn its full attention on the eradication of that organization. ISIS was born in the vacuum of governance created by the collapse of central authority in both Iraq and Syria brought on by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent support of Islamic extremism as a vehicle of instability in Syria after 2011. As the Iraqi government, with the assistance of Iran, regains control of its own territory, the last remaining bastions of ISIS control are on Syrian soil, in areas controlled by the U.S. military. The correlation between the presence of U.S. military forces and the continued existence of ISIS should not be lost on anyone—ISIS needs the U.S. in order to survive.

The patrol that was attacked in Manbij was not, as the detractors of Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria have stated, furthering the national security objectives of the United States. While it wasn’t their intention, through their actions these Americans were empowering ISIS by furthering a situation from which ISIS in Syria draws its relevance. A U.S. withdrawal from Syria would set ISIS adrift, allowing the Syrian government, backed by Russia and Iran, to defeat it and reassert its control over not only the territory currently occupied by ISIS, but also the hearts and minds of the Syrian Arabs whom ISIS needs for sustainment. By attacking the U.S. military and Manbij City Council on January 16, 2019, ISIS cast its vote in favor of the continued presence of U.S. military forces in Syria. Those who continue to argue in favor of a U.S. military presence in Syria are only giving credence to that vote.

Julian Assange launches legal challenge against Trump administration

Julian Assange, the fugitive WikiLeaks founder whose diplomatic sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy appears increasingly precarious, is launching a legal challenge against the Trump administration. Lawyers for the Australian activist have filed an urgent application to the Washington-based Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) aimed at forcing the hand of US prosecutors, requiring them to “unseal” any secret charges against him.

The legal move is an attempt to prevent Assange’s extradition to the US at a time that a new Ecuadorian government has been making his stay in the central London apartment increasingly inhospitable.

It is believed American prosecutors have been investigating Assange since at least 2011, when a grand jury hearing was opened into the whistleblowing website’s publication of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables, in conjunction with a number of international newspapers including the Guardian.

The IACHR monitors human rights in the Americas and hears appeals on individual cases. The Trump administration, however, has boycotted its recent hearings. The 1,172-page submission by Assange’s lawyers calls on the US to unseal any secret charges against him and urges Ecuador to cease its “espionage activities” against him.

Baltasar Garzón, the prominent Spanish judge who has pursued dictators, terrorists and drug barons, is the international coordinator of Assange’s legal team. He has said the case involves “the right to access and impart information freely” that has been put in “jeopardy”.

The Trump administration is refusing to reveal details of charges against Assange despite the fact that sources in the US Department of Justice have confirmed to the media that they exist under seal.

France-Italy row: Italy accuses France of colonising Africa

Italian deputy PM calls on French voters not to back Macron

Tensions between Italy and France have deepened after the Italian deputy prime minister urged French people not to support Emmanuel Macron in forthcoming elections, provoking a withering response from Paris.

Matteo Salvini called on voters to shun the French president’s En Marche party in European parliamentary elections in May, prompting Nathalie Loisseau, France’s European affairs minister, to dismiss his comments as insignificant and insisting they would not trigger a “competition of the stupidest”.

“In France they have a bad government and a bad president of the Republic,” Salvini, who also leads the far-right Northern League, wrote on Facebook. “Macron speaks about being welcoming, but then rejects immigrants at the border. The French people deserve better and the European elections of 26 May will provide a good signal.” ...

Salvini seized the opportunity to attack Macron after Luigi Di Maio, his coalition partner and leader of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement, caused a storm by accusing France of creating poverty in Africa and causing mass migration to Europe. The Italian envoy in France, Teresa Castaldo, was summoned on Monday over what the French foreign ministry described as “hostile” remarks.

House lawmakers approve new NATO protections

The House overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday night that would trigger new protections to ensure the United States remains in NATO and thwart moves by President Donald Trump from quitting the alliance.

The lower chamber voted 357 to 22 to approve the plan, which now heads to the Senate, where similar legislation has been introduced.

The move came hours after House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Reps. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif. and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn., joined other Democratic members to speak in support of the plan, saying it was a critical way to fend off ongoing threats from the Trump administration to leave the alliance.

The legislation, H.R. 676, called the NATO Support Act, makes clear that no funds will be used to withdraw the United States from the alliance.

All-American governmental pissing contest extended!

Pelosi tells Trump she will block State of the Union address in House

Nancy Pelosi has told Donald Trump she will block him from delivering his State of the Union address in the House chamber until the government has reopened. “I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the president’s State of the Union address in the House chamber until government has opened,” the House speaker wrote in a letter to the US president on Wednesday.

“I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.” Passage of a resolution is required before the president can speak in the House. The speech had been set for 29 January.

The president told reporters he was “not surprised” by Pelosi’s decision not to authorize his State of the Union address during the shutdown. “It’s really a shame what’s happening with the Democrats. They’ve become radicalized,” Trump told reporters at the White House. ... He added of the shutdown: “This will go on for a while.” ...

Officials have been considering potential alternative venues for the 29 January speech, including a rally-style event, an Oval Office address – as Pelosi previously suggested – a speech in the Senate chamber, and even a visit to the Mexican border. Multiple versions of the speech are being drafted to suit the final venue.

Senate to vote on pair of bills that could end government shutdown

The Senate will vote on Thursday on a pair of bills that could end the month-long partial shutdown of the federal government– if passed.

The first bill, a Republican-backed measure, would meet Donald Trump’s demand for a $5.7bn wall along the southern border in exchange for temporary protections for young undocumented immigrants. The second would extend funding for the agencies that are currently closed through to 8 February.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and minority leader Chuck Schumer said on Tuesday that they would bring the dueling bills to the floor, in the first sign of progress after a 32-day stalemate over the partial shutdown, which has left as many as 800,000 government workers without pay. They announced the compromise on the Senate floor on Tuesday, with Schumer predicting that the short-term funding proposal “could break us out of the morass we are in”. ...

However, it is far from certain whether either bill can garner enough support to pass the chamber. Democrats, who are opposed to granting funding for a border wall, likely have the votes to block Trump’s proposal. The Democratic proposal would have to win the support of at least 13 Republicans to reach the 60-vote threshold.

Number of uninsured Americans increases by 7m in four years

About 7 million fewer Americans have health insurance today than did four years ago, a new survey has found, the highest uninsured rate since 2014. The results come after sustained Republican attacks on government-backed health schemes, including the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

The survey’s findings come as the public is increasingly interested in government-run health programs.

The United States is the only large, highly developed country that lacks universal health coverage. At the same time, healthcare costs in the US are the highest in the world, and can be financially catastrophic.

This fact has perplexed international health advocates, such as the former UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon, who told the Guardian last fall the American health system is “morally wrong”.

The new figures come from a survey, conducted by Gallup, which since 2008 has asked roughly 28,000 people a quarter “Do you have health insurance?”. In 2018, pollsters found 13.7% of Americans lacked health insurance, the highest levels since 2014. The change represents a net increase of 7 million uninsured individuals.

Progressives Warn Against Democrats Pushing 'Diluted' Half-Measures as Alternative to Medicare for All

A Medicare buy-in. A Medicaid buy-in. Medicare for retiring police officers and firefighters under the age of 65. Defend and strengthen Obamacare.

With Medicare for All polling at an unprecedented 70 percent support among the American public and headed toward its first-ever congressional hearing, Politico on Tuesday reported that there is a growing effort among congressional Democrats—including some 2020 presidential hopefuls—to "water down" the grassroots push for a transformative single-payer program by offering up more incremental approaches to solving America's for-profit healthcare crisis.

The proposals listed above, which Politico encapsulated with the term "Medicare for More," are just a handful of ideas Democratic lawmakers have put forth as ostensibly more "pragmatic" paths to achieving a humane healthcare system. But grassroots Medicare for All advocates and campaigners—whose voices were absent from Politico's report—strongly objected to any plan that leaves intact central elements of a status quo that has produced enormous profits for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, while leaving millions of Americans with soaring costs or entirely uninsured.

"Improved Medicare for All has support from an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters, so why the sudden proliferation of public option proposals? We should be very skeptical of these sorts of bills," Dr. Adam Gaffney, president of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), told Common Dreams. "They would not solve the fundamental problems of the American healthcare system, such as uninsurance, underinsurance, enormous administrative waste, or sky-high drug prices," Gaffney added. "Only improved Medicare for All, aka single-payer, could accomplish those goals, reining in costs while achieving first-dollar universal coverage for everyone in the nation. This should be the moment that lawmakers coalesce behind the single-payer bills in the House and the Senate."

According to Politico, Democratic leaders as well as rank-and-file lawmakers like Sens. Sherrod Brown, Tim Kaine, and others are refusing to throw their support behind Medicare for All, instead backing plans that "range from modest Medicare reforms to more ambitious restructurings that would extend government-run care to millions of new patients—an array of options that fall short of campaign trail promises for full Medicare for All." ...

In a Tuesday op-ed on Common Dreams, essayist Thomas Neuburger wrote that Democrats will soon be forced to pick a side in the immensely consequential fight over the future of the American healthcare system. "When Medicare for All becomes a bill, the fight will be a cage match with the bright lights on," Neuburger noted. "What will the Democratic Party (in the aggregate) do in response? Will it support, whole-heartedly and by its actions, the health and welfare of the American people, or continue the abuse of the American people by supporting those who extract wealth from suffering?"

Trump Administration Grants South Carolina Foster Care Agencies Authority to Discriminate Against Jewish, Muslim Families

The Trump administration on Wednesday made a quiet move that opens the door for the religious right to use the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act to discriminate against able foster parents whose religious views are in conflict with those of an agency. On the 33rd day of the government shutdown, Steven Wagner, principal deputy assistant secretary at the Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families signed a waiver giving special permission to a federally funded Protestant foster care agency in South Carolina to break federal and state law, using strict religious requirements to deny Jewish, Muslim and Catholic parents from fostering children in its network.

After months of lobbying by Reid Lehman, president and CEO of Miracle Hill Ministries, South Carolina lawmakers, and Gov. Henry McMaster, Wagner signed a waiver that lets the agency keep its federal funding despite warnings by the state Department of Social Services that it’s violating federal and state nondiscrimination law, as well as internal agency policy, by denying parents of the Jewish faith from fostering children. The agency also rejects parents who are agnostic and atheist — anyone who is not a Protestant Christian.

“We have approved South Carolina’s request to protect religious freedom and preserve high-quality foster care placement options for children,” Lynn Johnson, assistant secretary for HHS Administration for Children and Families, said in a statement. “By granting this request to South Carolina,” she continued,“HHS is putting foster care capacity needs ahead of burdensome regulations that are in conflict with the law.” ...

The episode bodes poorly for advocates of civil liberties and religious freedom alike, and opens the door for foster care agencies in other states and players at other HHS-funded agencies, including the offices for Medicare and Medicaid, NIH, the FDA, and the CDC, among others, to discriminate in the name of religious freedom while keeping their federal funding.

“This Was About the Survival of Public Education”: LA Teachers Claim Victory After Week-Long Strike

A Blue State Teacher Rebellion: Denver Teachers Vote to Strike as L.A. Educators Win Big Victory

Judge strikes down abortion law that would have been country's strictest

A state judge on Tuesday struck down Iowa’s restrictive “fetal heartbeat” abortion law, which would have been the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation. Judge Michael Huppert found the law unconstitutional, concluding that the Iowa supreme court’s earlier decisions that affirm a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion would cover the new law, passed last year.

He also cited several cases in federal court, including decisions in 2015 and 2016 in the eighth US circuit court of appeals that indicated such abortion laws were unconstitutional.

Huppert said prohibiting abortions at the detection of a fetal heartbeat violated “both the due process and equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution as not being narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of promoting potential life”. The law would ban an abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. That can happen as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

Doctors might be forced to tell people in North Dakota that “abortion reversals” are possible

When North Dakota legislators held a hearing on Monday over a so-called “abortion reversal” bill, there was standing room only. As the packed event unfolded, opponents tried to convince lawmakers that the bill was rooted in bad science.

The bill would require physicians to tell patients they can potentially “reverse” a medication-induced abortion. But "there's no credible, medically accepted evidence that a medication abortion can be reversed,” as Tammi Kromenaker, the director of the state’s last abortion clinic, the Red River Women's Clinic, told lawmakers in the House’s Human Service Committee.

The bill would “force physicians to lie to their patients,” Kromenaker added in the hearings, which marked the end of a six-year-long pause in the fight over abortion access in North Dakota.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has declared that the research purporting to show that so-called “abortion reversal” works don’t meet clinical standards and are not supported by science. Still, so far, at least four states have passed laws similar to the one proposed in North Dakota. The Republican legislators backing the bill said that it would give women who want abortions more information about their options.

SHOCKER: FBI Admits Sabotaging Progressive Politicians As Policy!

Coal Ash Is Contaminating Groundwater in at least 22 States, Utility Reports Show

The clearest picture yet of coal ash contamination in the United States is emerging, with utilities reporting serious groundwater contamination in at least 22 states. At dozens of power plants across the country, including many in the Southeast, utilities have found coal-ash pollution severe enough to force them to propose cleanup plans. Those plans will likely become the next front in a decades-long battle over how to manage one of the nation's largest industrial waste streams—one tainted by toxic heavy metals.

But as widespread as the contamination appears to be, environmental advocates are finding a measure of hope, even as the Trump administration pushes to roll back federal rules for managing and cleaning up contamination from the billions of tons of coal-burning wastes that have piled up across the country.

All power plants in South Carolina, for example, are removing the ash from their unlined ponds to prevent them from leaking pollution into nearby waterways. The governor of Virginia this month called for the complete removal of coal ash ponds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And environmental advocates have won rulings in state and federal courts, keeping the pressure on utilities to take action to protect human health and the environment.

"It's a flicker of hope, but there is an ill wind," said Lisa Evans, a senior attorney at Earthjustice who has fought for better protections from coal ash for years, referring to concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's concessions to utilities under the Trump administration. "But even if the Trump administration moves in to sweep away cleanup requirements, we now know the extent of the groundwater contamination, and it will be hard for them to leave communities with contaminated groundwater," she said. (A move by the Trump administration to relax the rules is being challenged.)

Company’s Racketeering Claims Against Environmental Activists Thrown Out

A U.S. judge on Tuesday dismissed the most serious claims in a lawsuit brought by a Canadian logging company that accused Greenpeace and another advocacy group of running a criminal enterprise to damage the company. The case, and a similar one filed later by the developer of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, had gained the attention of civil liberties and environmental advocacy organizations who warned it could set a dangerous precedent if it were allowed to proceed.

These groups argued that the lawsuit, filed by Resolute Forest Products, aimed to silence legitimate advocacy by characterizing the basic elements of activists' campaign work as a criminal conspiracy. By invoking the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, a federal conspiracy law that was devised to ensnare mobsters, the lawsuit threatened the defendants with a lengthy and complex legal battle and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. ...

While U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the racketeering claims, he also ruled that defamation and unfair competition claims against Greenpeace could continue. All of the claims again the other organization, Stand.earth, were dropped. ... In the Dakota Access case, a federal judge in North Dakota dismissed the racketeering case against some defendants, but the charges against Greenpeace are still pending.

Also of Interest

Here are some articles of interest, some which defied fair-use abstraction.

Intercepted podcast: Donald Trump and the Media Temple of BOOM!

Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon and Progressive Alliance to Destroy Donald Trump

Climate Change Is Key Part of Understanding Migration, GAO Tells Trump Administration

A N.Y. Times Story Just Accidentally Shredded the Russiagate Hysteria

Kamala Harris, Opportunist to the Core: Launches Prez Bid on MLK Day, Since She Has to Remind People She’s Black After Criminalizing Truancy, Keeping CA Prison Rolls Up to Provide Cheap Labor; Sends Tone-Deaf, Narcissistic Campaign E-mail

How elite US schools give preference to wealthy and white 'legacy' applicants

The Monopolist in the House: Rep. David Trone’s Wine Company Seeks to Overturn a Constitutional Amendment

Planet crash that made moon left key elements for life on Earth, scientists say

A Little Night Music

Mississippi John Hurt - Alabama Bound

Mississippi John Hurt - Coffee Blues

Mississippi John Hurt - Spike Driver Blues

Mississippi John Hurt - Since I've Laid My Burdens Down

Mississippi John Hurt - Pay Day

Mississippi John Hurt - Monday Morning Blues

Mississippi John Hurt - I'm Satisfied

Mississippi John Hurt - Joe Turner Blues

Mississippi John Hurt - C.C. Rider

Mississippi John Hurt & Skip James on WTBS-FM 1964