6.10 - The end of the battle for Aleppo

The end of the battle for Aleppo

On December 13, Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin told the Security Council that military action had ended in eastern Aleppo. A deal had been reached for the rebels to leave the city. The rebels confirmed the deal had been made.

The Battle of Aleppo, the battle and the siege that became the symbol for the humanitarian disaster that is Syria, the battle which since 2012 had pitted the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against an array of disorganized opposition rebels in what was essentially a standoff until massive Russian bombings turned the tide and enabled government troops and Iranian-sponsored militias to break through, that battle appeared to be over.

The news came in the wake of what UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called "reports of atrocities against a large number of civilians," including summary executions and even burning of people alive, atrocities committed by government troops and particularly by the militias in the final days of the battle.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights referred to "butcheries" carried out "every hour" and Jens Laerke of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs called it "a complete meltdown of humanity."

But at least it appeared it was over and the haunting question "What would you do about Aleppo," the question to which no one had a good answer, the question that could only bring the heart-shredding realization that sometimes there is nothing you can do, nothing that will not just increase the suffering, the death, the bloodshed, it appeared that question was finally silenced.

Except - the temptation is to say of course - it wasn't. The ceasefire agreement fell apart in less than a day.

It had been negotiated by Russia and Turkey and apparently Syria and Iran were ticked off they they weren't involved. As a result, the Iranian-backed militias refused to allow the evacuation even of the wounded, much less the rebels, to proceed.

The bombing, the destruction, the death, resumed, even intensified, only for another ceasefire to go into effect a day later, achieved after a concession to - notably - not Syria but Iran, involving arranging for a similar evacuation of two villages where Iranian-supported militias are under siege by rebel forces.

This time, it seemed to work. In the very early hours of Thursday, December 15, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed that the evacuation of the wounded from Aleppo had begun and Russia’s TASS news service said the evacuation of 5,000 Syrian rebels and their families was also under way.

So maybe it really is finally over. Over, that is, at least for the moment, at least for a few.

On a more if you will practical level, this is undeniably a military and perhaps more important political victory for Assad, for Russia, and perhaps even more for Iran. Aleppo was the last major urban center held by the rebels against the Assad regime.

But this does not mean in any sense that the war is over. Rebel forces in their varying forms, which include, we need to keep reminding ourselves, a variety of terrorist groups including some - such as the al-Nusra front - the US has supported as "moderates" solely because they say they oppose ISIS, still hold a significant amount of territory and the fact is, Assad is now almost entirely dependent on Russia and Iran for his survival.

Meanwhile, Daesh - that is, ISIS - has retaken the city of Palmyra and launched an attack on a major Syrian airbase.

The future of the war and the future of Syria is a very different question from the end of the battle for Aleppo. The blood continues to flow.

6.9 - Update: Ohio Gov. John NotOKsich signs 20-week abortion ban

Update: Ohio Gov. John NotOKsich signs 20-week abortion ban

One last Update. Last week I mentioned that Keith Faber, the president of the Ohio State Senate, had said that the election of TheRump was what prompted the Ohio legislature to pass the nation's strictest anti-choice measure, one that would ban abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy, as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, a time when many women won't even realize they are pregnant.

As a quick sidebar, it's worth mentioning that "fetal heartbeat," as applied to such a law, is medically inaccurate: The proper term is "fetal pole cardiac activity" and what is being detected isn't actually a heartbeat, as there is at that point no heart.

But getting back to the bill, the Update here is that Gov. John NotOKsich, in a move happily endorsed by Ohio No Right to Choose - aka Ohio Right to Life - vetoed the six-week ban but signed the bill the anti-choicers really wanted, which had been passed at the same time: a ban on abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, which right now matches the strictest ban in the country.

See, the forced birthers know full well that the fetal-heartbeat bill didn't have a chance of being sustained in court, particularly since the two states to enact such a law were shot down in court in no uncertain terms.

But they wanted Ohio to join the 18 other states which have at some point passed a 20-week ban and with the passage of the fetal-heartbeat measure, NotOKsich was presented with the opportunity to do what he so loves to do: appear moderate by adopting the supposed "middle" course - the ban after 20 weeks - while actually seeking to advance the agenda of the reactionaries.

Three states - Arizona, Georgia, and Idaho - have seen their 20-week bans challenged in federal court. All three lost and in all three cases, the Supreme Court refused to take the case. But because that just let lower-court rulings stand, no national ruling has been made and the forced birthers are hoping the 20-week standard at some point will prove to be a wedge to get SCOTUS, thickened with one or two reactionaries attained during the regime of the Great Orange One, to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely.

It's also important to note that none of this happened without resistance. On Saturday, December 10, protesters descended on the Ohio statehouse and hung coat hangers all along the statehouse fence. Naturally, the hangers were taken down by officials - but the protesters came back on Sunday the 11th and put more up.

The symbolism of the wire coat hanger is a potent one. I have said a number of times that I am old enough to remember without being prompted the meaning of that symbol. And I say again that I have no desire to return to those times.

6.8 - Update: DACA students advised to be in US on January 20

Update: DACA students advised to be in US on January 20

This is a relatively quick Update. The bare facts speaks for themselves. Or as much as they can in the fact-free world of Donald TheRump.

Two weeks ago, I noted that hundreds of college and university presidents from across the US had signed a statement calling for continuing the policy called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. That policy, begun by executive order in June 2012, allows certain undocumented immigrants who entered the country as minors to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation.

The Update is that advocates for immigrants are now advising folks covered by the program to make sure that they are not traveling abroad when President Xenophobe is sworn in on January 20 because they are afraid that he might immediately rescind the program, with the result that they might be barred from returning to the US.

That is how deep, how real, the fear is; how deep, how real, the threat it.

Because no one can say that fear is an irrational one. TheRump made immigration the cornerstone of his campaign, promising to build a wall along the Mexican border and to deport undocumented immigrants by the millions.

Then later it was oh, no, he wants to focus on those who have committed crimes - which is exactly the Obama policy that he denounced as too soft during the campaign, even though the Amazing Mr. O deported more people than any previous president.

Continuing his pattern of spewing whatever bilge happens to be flushing through his sewer system of a mind at a given moment, during a recent magazine interview, TheRump expressed sympathy for the 741,000 people in the DACA program - despite having called it "illegal amnesty" during the campaign.

On top of that, no matter what he said, his advisers would rush out to walk back his comments almost as soon as they were published.

All of which gives those who had lived in hope and tried to build a life in the country they knew as home good and legitimate reason to fear that they will be forced back into the shadows - or worse.

And it gives the rest of us good cause to stand with them - because as the saying goes, no human being is illegal.

6.7 - Update: Court delays ruling on Standing Rock

Update: Court delays ruling on Standing Rock

Next up, a couple of Updates and the first one is another case of taking your good news where you can find it because the news isn't all good.

Last week, in discussing the victory at Standing Rock, I mentioned that Energy Transfer Partners, the developers of the Dakota Access Pipeline, were suing in federal court in Washington, DC, insisting that the court should order the Army Corps of Engineers to grant the easements the company desires. The good part of the Update is that on December 9, the judge in the case, James Boasberg, denied a motion by Energy Transfer Partners, or ETP, for an immediate ruling in the company's favor, preferring to order the company and the Army Corps of engineers to submit additional motions and pleadings by January 31, 2017.

What this means is the the court is prepared for a full hearing on the matter, meaning a decision would likely not be delivered for a couple of months or even more. As I said before, I know of no particular reason to just assume the decision, when it comes, will be a bad one, but the fact is, this is a case where delay is good, delay works to our benefit.

The bad part of the Update - and it is bad - is that NBC News is reporting that it wasn't actually the Corps of Engineers that turned away the application for easements. In fact, the Corps recommended granting the easements. But the agency was overruled by Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy.

The problem is, that position makes her a management-level "political appointee" whose tenure will end with the end of the Obama administration unless she is re-appointed by TheRump - and considering that he claims an intent to "bring back coal," he wants the CEO of Exxon-Mobil to be Secretary of State, and it turns out that Rick "Oops" Perry, his pick for Energy Secretary, is on the board of directors of ETP, that seems to put it mildly highly unlikely. With some new, more agreeable Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works in place, the decision to overrule the Corps could be undone within days and what's more, the Corps could go into Judge Boasberg's court on January 31 and say it is declining to offer a defense to ETP's suit, which could easily lead to a summary judgement in ETP's favor.

Now, that would not be the end of it because, as I said last week, the attempt to simply undo the decision to do more environmental review of the project would most certainly spark its own lawsuits, which could tie up the project for years.

So the news only emphasizes that the fight is not over - but I have to admit that nonetheless it brings a certain sense of discouragement, a sense for which there is only one cure: renewed people power. I look forward to seeing it, taking part as I can even though that is limited, and celebrating it wherever and whenever it happens.

6.6 - For the Record: Castro had faults, but we have Gitmo

For the Record: Castro had faults, but we have Gitmo

For the record...
...when Fidel Castro died, it was immediately clear that in the US media that the old chestnut about not speaking ill of the dead did not apply to him. Accounts were filled to the brim with denunciations of his "communist dictatorship" and other sins.

And yes, there was enough to condemn, although it seems to me some room could have been found to comment on the improvements in health care and education which were also part of that history.

But what I wanted to quote here was the pointed and worthwhile observation of blogger Avedon Carol, who said:

Whatever else you may know about Cuba, you should certainly remember that there is a prison on that island where people have been held and tortured for 14 years without charges. And Cuba does not run that prison.

Something else that largely has slipped down the memory hole.

6.5 - For the Record: website dishes out sexist advice to women

For the Record: website dishes out sexist advice to women

For the record...
...a site called Lifescript.com, one of those smirking "however you are living your life, you're doing it wrong" sites aimed at women, recently had a piece entitled "Grow Up Already - 20 Trends You're Too Old to Wear."

That's right, it was actually laying down age limits for certain sorts of clothing or fashions punctuated with "fashion advice" about "timeless" looks that amounted to "act your age, which means looking like everybody always has before."

Well, for my part I would say that women would do better by dumping that kind of sexist "guidance" and reading Jenny Joseph's poem entitled "Warning," which begins

When I am an old woman I shall wear purple
With a red hat that doesn't go, and doesn't suit me

and realize you don't have to be old to wear purple.

6.4 - Not Good News: Eight of nine tech companies refuse to pledge not to help with Muslim database

Not Good News: Eight of nine tech companies refuse to pledge not to help with Muslim database

That is a kind of Good News we can really use because it comes on the heels of some Not Good News.

In the wake of TheRump's election and his embrace of raging xenophobe Kris Kobach, with the resulting claims that TheRump was serious about the Great Wall of Orange on the Mexican border and about a registry for Muslim immigrants, the online magazine The Intercept contacted nine different American technology-related firms to ask if that company would, quoting the question, "if solicited by the Trump administration, sell any goods, services, information, or consulting of any kind to help facilitate the creation of a national Muslim registry, a project which has been floated tentatively by the president-elect’s transition team?"

After two weeks of calls and emails, six of the nine companies - Facebook, Google, Apple, IBM, SRA International, and CGI - wouldn't even provide an answer. Booz Allen Hamilton did answer - if you regard "declined to comment" an answer. Microsoft said the company would not discuss "hypotheticals" before offering the deeply disturbing observation that, quoting, "it will remain important for those in government and the tech sector to continue to work together to strike a balance that protects privacy and public safety in what remains a dangerous time." (Has it ever struck you that every time someone talks about a "balance" between privacy and security it always means we should have less privacy and more government surveillance?)

Of the nine, only one company gave a flat-out no: Twitter, which referred to a company policy statement saying, again quoting:

We prohibit developers ... from allowing law enforcement - or any other entity - to use Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period.

This was apparently done in the wake of reports that police around the country were using people's social media feeds to track and surveil anti-TheRump activists at protests in the wake of the election.

Writing for the Intercept, reporter Sam Biddle notes in fairness that the lack of an answer from the other companies does not mean that they are tacitly endorsing TheRump's agenda in general or a Muslim registry in particular.

Even so, he wrote, it's hardly asking a lot of tech companies "to go on record as unwilling to help create a federal list of Muslims."

But apparently, for a lot of them, it is asking too much.

So good on Twitter, and that is good news - but the silence from the others except for a bit of creepy blather about "balance" definitely comes under the heading of Not Good News.

6.3 - Good News: Tech-sector workers say they will not help create Muslim database

Good News: Tech-sector workers say they will not help create Muslim database

Okay, next up, we have something we actually can call Good News.

On December 13, more than 100 employees of technology companies including Google, Twitter, and Salesforce published an open letter in which they pledged not to help the coming Donald TheRump administration to build a data registry to track people based on their religion or assist in mass deportations.

The employees, a mix of engineers, designers, and business executives, drew on comparisons to the Holocaust and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II to declare their opposition.

Quoting the letter:

We are choosing to stand in solidarity with Muslim Americans, immigrants, and all people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened by the incoming administration’s proposed data collection policies.

We refuse to build a database of people based on their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs. We refuse to facilitate mass deportations of people the government believes to be undesirable.

The signers also pledge, also among other actions, to work within their organizations to minimize the collection and retention of data that would facilitate ethnic or religious targeting - and in the event they discover within their organization illegal or unethical misuse of data, they will engage in "responsible whistleblowing" and resign rather than take part themselves.

By early evening on December 17, the number of signers had grown to over 2100 and was still climbing. And that just makes the Good News even better.

6.2 - Footnote: drone war in Yemen continues

Footnote: drone war in Yemen continues

Oh, and as a very quick footnote to that: Yes, the US is still carrying out drone strikes in Yemen.

The military acknowledges four drone strikes in Yemen this year, all supposedly targeted against AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), which controls some territory in east-central Yemen. On the other hand, relying on published media accounts, New America.org claims there have been 38 such strikes in 2016.

The actual number is uncertain, particularly because the US usually only announces such strikes if either some "high-value target" is killed or the admission is forced because of the civilian casualties it caused. But no, the drone war hasn't stopped just because we don't hear about it as often amidst the roar of war in Syria and western Iraq.

6.1 - War in Yemen; US begins to back away

War in Yemen; US begins to back away

We're going to start with something that eventually, believe it or not, turns into a sort of good news kinda.

Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East. It has been in a bloody civil war since late 2014. Even as the world was distracted by Syria, the death and destruction in Yemen mounted.

It is estimated that upwards of 10,000 have died in what the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs calls "the forgotten war." The health service there has "completely collapsed." There are 1.5 million malnourished children the country, 370,000 of them severely malnourished. UNICEF reports that of the total population of 27 million people, an estimated 21.2 million, nearly 80% of the total, need humanitarian assistance of some kind. Half of that number is children.

Of that 27 million, 3.3 million, over 10 percent, have been forced from their homes. Over half are "food insecure," meaning they don't know from one day to the next if there will be enough food to eat. Over two-thirds lack access to safe drinking water, which is connected to a recent outbreak of cholera, with the World Health Organization recording almost 5,500 suspected cases a month ago.

I'm not going to even try to disentangle the history of the war, especially since this is hardly the first internal conflict Yemen has experienced. I will just notice that the actual fighting broke out when Houthi rebels seized control of Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, in September 2014. A few months, later, they seized the presidential compound, forcing President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi to flee the country in late February 2015.

Since then, the fighting between supporters of the Hadi government - with outside aid coming from the US via drone strikes and from Saudi Arabia - and the Houthi - with outside aid from Iran - has continued and gotten more vicious over time. As a quick aside, to show how messy civil wars quickly become, among those supporting the Houthi are supporters of Hadi's predecessor, Ali Abdullah Saleh - who was forced from office by an uprising supported by the Houthi.

Despite the on-going brutality and suffering, neither side has gained a decisive advantage.

Okay, so what's the sorta kinda good news? Because I'd say we could use some about now.

The Good News is that there is actually - or at least it appears there is actually - a limit to the atrocities our government will tolerate for the sake of "stability" and in the name of "fighting terrorism."

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has been leading what we call so euphemistically call an "air campaign" in Yemen. It has consisted of attacks on hospitals, schools, markets, factories, and other clearly civilian targets. It has consisted of, that is, war crimes.

And now, belatedly and after multiple protests, but finally, the United States has decided to limit its military support to Saudi Arabia's campaign by cutting off supplies of certain weapons.

Just what weapons are involved is not certain, but it involves precision-guided munitions which the US had been supplying under the notion that such weapons can minimize civilian casualties - only to have them used by the Saudis, it appears, to more accurately target civilian and non-combatant targets. It finally got to be too much even for the cold hearts of the US military establishment.

However, the reason this is kinda sorta good news is that while we can be glad of the decision, it not nearly enough. It is not the cut-off in support that folks had hoped for. For example, the US will keep refueling the aircraft involved and will continue some other arms sales to the kingdom, including a $3.5 billion deal for Chinook cargo helicopters, which the US insists would not be part of offensive actions in Yemen.

As a result, William Hartung of the Center for International Policy called the decision to stop supplying precision-guided munitions a "weak signal," while Samah Hadid of Amnesty International said the move "falls far short of what is needed" and Rep. Ted Lieu from California called the decision to continue the re-fueling "completely bizarre."

There is one other point to consider: This is not the US's first hesitant step away from its embrace of Saudi Arabia's war crimes.

In May, Washington suspended sales of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia and in August, the US military began to back away from supporting to Saudi Arabia's campaign, pulling out a planning team that was coordinating with the bombing campaign.

Some have suggested that those moves, and this latest one, are less about any moral judgement on Saudi Arabia, an important regional ally we historically have tried very hard to avoid offending, but are more about concerns among some US officials that by not acting, the United States could be implicated in Saudi Arabia's war crimes.

Whatever the reason and yes, however weak the signal, we still should be glad it happened. Now it's time to pull the plug on all military aid and sales to the repressive regime of Saudi Arabia. Now, that would be Good News.

What's Left #6

What's Left
for the week of December 15-21, 2016

This week:
War in Yemen; US begins to back away
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/middleeast/yemen-conflict/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38220785
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-38067031
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34011187
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/25/civilian-casualties-war-crimes-saudi-arabia-yemen-war/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudiarabia-yemen-exclusive-idUSKBN1421UK
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/13/us-halts-some-saudi-arms-sales-to-over-yemen-deaths-concerns.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/20/middleeast/us-military-yemen-saudi-led-coalition/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-13/after-shipping-billions-weapons-saudis-obama-decides-halt-sales-following-war-crimes

Footnote: drone war in Yemen continues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_strikes_in_Yemen#2016
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/yemen-analysis.html

Good News: Tech-sector workers say they will not help create Muslim database
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-surveillance-idUSKBN1422KT?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=408
http://neveragain.tech/

Not Good News: Eight of nine tech companies refuse to pledge not to help with Muslim database
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN13B05C
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/of-8-tech-companies-only-twitter-says-it-would-refuse-to-help-build-muslim-registry-for-trump/
https://blog.twitter.com/2016/developer-policies-to-protect-people-s-voices-on-twitter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/11/18/police-are-spending-millions-to-monitor-the-social-media-of-protesters-and-suspects/

For the Record: website dishes out sexist advice to women
http://www.lifescript.com/well-being/m-slideshows/top_10_items_youre_too_old_to_wear.aspx?utm_source=aol&utm_medium=syn&utm_campaign=wellbeing

For the Record: Castro had faults, but we have Gitmo
http://avedoncarol.blogspot.com/2016/12/meat-nor-drink-nor-money-have-i-none.html

Update: Court delays ruling on Standing Rock
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/10/1609346/-Federal-Judge-Turns-Down-Quick-Decision-on-Dakota-Access-Pipeline-Lake-Oahe-Easement
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/rick-perry-dakota-access-pipeline-donald-trump

Update: DACA students advised to be in US on January 20
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/young-dreamer-immigrants-warned-stop-travel-before-trump-swears-in/?google_editors_picks=true

Update: Ohio Gov. John NotOKsich signs 20-week abortion ban
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/dear-press-stop-calling-them-heartbeat-bills-and-call-them-fetal-pole-cardiac-activity-bills/
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/13/gov-kasich-vetoes-heartbeat-bill-signs-law-banning-abortion/21627211/
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/08/1608709/-Ohio-guv-might-veto-heartbeat-bill-and-sign-forced-birthers-real-desire-a-20-week-abortion-ban
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/people-are-protesting-ohios-abortion-ban-with-coat-hangers.html?utm_source=AOL&utm_medium=readMore&utm_campaign=partner

The end of the battle for Aleppo
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38308883
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-battle-for-aleppo-syrias-stalingrad-ends
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38297986
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/12/last-rebels-in-aleppo-say-assad-forces-are-burning-people-alive.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/middleeast/aleppo-syria-government-gains/index.html
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/13/aleppo-civilians-killed-complete-meltdown-humanity-un/21626984/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/14/aleppo-ceasefire-syria-civilians-evacuate
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/dec/15/aleppo-tense-as-evacuations-set-to-begin-live-updates
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-with-terrorists-like-al-nusra-its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-10319370.html

5.8 - Latest Clintonite excuses for losing: blame Jill Stein and millennials

Latest Clintonite excuses for losing: blame Jill Stein and millennials

I keep trying to get away from this, this being post-mortems of the election, but they keep dragging me back in with the stupidity.

But wait, that's not right. There's nothing stupid about it. Rather, it's what I called it before: a reflection of, an outgrowth of, the desperate desire of the political and media establishment to declare that nothing has changed, everything is as it was, this is all "normal," the usual politics, and at the end of the day we - the establishment - are still in control.

The result is an overwhelming desire on the part of that establishment to normalize Donald TheRump and the collection of cronies, wackos, and reactionaries he is surrounding himself with.

This is why we keep getting told in one way or another that TheRump didn't actually mean a lot of the bigoted crap he said or the wild claims he made on the campaign trail and his admitting that he forgot that he ever promised to keep those Carrier jobs in Indiana was treated almost as a charming eccentricity.

This is why the media is recasting the flaming racist anti-Semitic bigot and soon-to-be "Special Advisor to the President" Steve Bannon as a "provocateur" and a "fiery populist."

This is why columnist Chris Cillizza, who regards Bannon - along with conspiracy-tweeting Islamaphobe and soon-to-be National Security Advisor Michael Flynn - as merely "controversial," is so eager to show that TheRump's Cabinet choices "reflect a political savviness."

And it's why the Democratic party establishment and its fellow travelers in the media continue to blame the failures of the Dummycrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign on anyone and everyone - except the Dummycrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Why it continues to insist "we didn't do anything wrong, we don't need to change anything, except maybe we need to 'sharpen our message.'"

Because, to paraphrase what used to be said about conservatism, the party establishment can never fail, it can only be failed.

Thus we get, for one example, yet another variation on the "blame third parties" - or, to be more exact, "blame Jill Stein" - argument.

The online politics magazine The Hill ran a piece declaring that

[i]n two key states that President-elect Donald Trump won, his margin of victory was smaller than the total number of votes for Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

So you see, it was Stein's fault Clinton lost those states because if she had only somehow gotten all of Stein's votes - truly a delusional fantasy - but if somehow that had happened, she would have won!

Except, um, no, she wouldn't: The two states were Michigan and Wisconsin with a total of 26 electoral votes between them. Had Clinton won both, she still would have lost the electoral vote 280-258. So what is the point of the article?

The point is that originally, the article said there were three such states. The third was Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes. So if Clinton had gotten all of Stein's votes in Pennsylvania, it said originally, she would have won the election 278-260. The hitch is that when more votes came in, it turned out that TheRump's margin in Pennsylvania was greater than the number of Stein's votes which meant first that the article had to be clumsily edited to make it two states and second even if Clinton had gotten every one of Stein's votes in Pennsylvania she still would have lost the state and the election.

It would have been reasonable in view of the changed numbers, which undermined the entire premise of the piece, to go "oops" and drop the article. But they weren't about to give up on a chance to slam a third party candidacy as "how dare you even hypothetically affect one of the two enshrined, sacred, parties!"

So consider what they did instead. Quoting the article:

In Wisconsin, Trump’s margin over Clinton was 22,177, while Stein garnered 31,006 votes.

In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Stein’s total of 49,485 votes was just slightly smaller than Trump’s victory margin of 67,416 votes.

Okay, in Wisconsin, Stein if you will beat the margin - exceeded TheRump's victory margin - by 8800 votes, a figure apparently considered large enough to be significant. But in Pennsylvania, she fell short of the margin by a hair under 18,000 votes, more than double the difference in Wisconsin and that figure - 18,000 - was equal to 36% of her entire vote. But that total is considered to be "just slightly smaller" than TheRump's margin.

Put bluntly, they maximized the meaning where Stein beat TheRump's margin and minimized the meaning where she didn't, still hinting that Stein was the cause of Clinton's failures - emphasized by the fact that later in the article, it said that if Clinton had won all three states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she would have won the election - despite having been forced to admit that even with every one of Jill Stein's votes, Clinton still would have lost Pennsylvania.

But it's not just blame Jill Stein, no, of course not, it's blame anyone you can come up with.

The latest nonsense - this is a new one at least as far as I'm aware - comes from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, who claimed on December 2 that the people really to blame are - get this - millennials.

The argument is based on something I pointed out before: She did five points worse with voters 18-29 than Obama did in 2012. But where I saw a failure on her part to give them enough of a reason to vote for her, Mook and senior Washington Post political reporter Aaron Blake, who supported Mook on this, see a failure by those voters to support her even in the lack of such a reason. In their eyes, young voters failed in some kind of unspoken responsibility to uphold the preferred candidate of the liberal establishment.

What makes the argument really asinine is that Clinton won the 18-29 vote by 55%-36%, a margin of 19 points. It was her highest percentage and the biggest margin of any age group.

You could blame those 45-64. Clinton lost that group by 8 points. Nope, blame the young folks who voter for her by 19 points. You could blame those over 65, she lost them by 7 points. Nope, blame the - you'll pardon this old dude for the term - kids who supported her more than anyone else.

This would be almost funny in a bitter sort of way if it wasn't for the fact that it's part of the overall drive by yes the political and media establishment to say nothing needs to be changed, nothing needs to be done differently, because we are still safe in our privileged enclaves.

Which is exactly why it must change.

5.7 - Clown Award: Christina Alesci of CNN

Clown Award: Christina Alesci of CNN

Now it's time for the return of one of our regular features but which hasn't been seen here for a while. This is the Clown Award, given as always for meritorious stupidity.

This time, the winner of the Big Red Nose is CNN reporter Christina Alesci.

On December 2, CNN carried a story about how TheRump is convening a panel of prominent CEOs to meet with on a monthly basis to discuss the "big issues" around the economy and taxes.

Christina Alesci

Alesci reported excitedly that the panel, assembled by the Blackstone Group's CEO Stephen Schwartzman, will be made up of a "who's who" of "bipartisan CEOs."

She called it "really historic," gushed "I've never seen anything quite like this," and said the list provides "some very diverse viewpoints."

The list includes the CEOs of GM, JP Morgan Chase, Blackrock, Disney, WalMart, and, one assumes, Blackstone, and the former CEO of GE.

For the media, it's the very definition of corporate diversity: the entire spectrum of opinion, from GE to GM.

The spectrum of opinion about Christina Alesci is just about as wide: It runs from clown to clown.

5.6 - For the Record: the rich are not like us

For the Record: the rich are not like us

For the record...
...it remains true that yes, the rich are not like you and me.

About two weeks ago, the Washington Post carried an article about what it called the haute horology world - that is, the world of people for who watches are not a means to tell the time, they are a way to declare your importance and flaunt your wealth.

They are "timepiece connoisseurs" who will tell you "You don't need a watch to tell the time" and if you do, a Timex will do just fine. They attend watch events with - quoting the article - "expertly lighted booths that make the watches sparkle like diamonds" and dealers who "resemble charming Bond villains in dark clothes and black gloves."

They will spend tens of thousands of dollars for a watch, in fact $15,000 models are deemed "middle-class" timepieces and a Rolex is regarded as a starter watch. Luxury watches, the article says, "are Porsches for your wrist, Birkin bags for boys that speak stacks of cash about the owners."

They are, that is, a means to show off, to impress others, and to be able to recognize those not worth your time, those too déclassé to realize the superior quality of what is on your wrist.

Collecting such watches is, in the words of one collector, "basically a silly hobby." A silly hobby involving useless baubles each of which costs more than most of us will make in a year (or two, or three) being pursued by people with more money than they know what to do with.

5.5 - For the Record: another state finds the poor are not drug abusers

For the Record: another state finds the poor are not drug abusers

For the record...
...Michigan just completed a year-long pilot program to ferret out drug users among welfare recipients - without finding a single one.

Of the 443 applicants for or recipients of what the state calls its "Family Independence Program," 14 were chosen for "suspicion-based screenings." Only one was found to have "a reasonable suspicion of use of a controlled substance" and that person dropped off the rolls "for an unrelated reason" and was never tested. So not only did they not find any drug users, they didn't even find anyone to test.

Michigan thus becomes the ninth state that I know of - the others being Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah - that has instituted some form of drug testing program for the poor only for these states to find, without exception, that people on or applying for public aid are less likely to be using drugs than the general population.

5.4 - For the Record: harsh anti-abortion law in Ohio

For the Record: harsh anti-abortion law in Ohio

Okay, we are introducing a new occasional feature this week. It's called For the Record and it involves items that I will cover briefly, no more than a minute or a minute and a-half, but which are things I just want to make sure get said.

To illustrate, we are kicking it off this week with three examples.

For the record...
...the baleful effect of TheRump is visible even now.

According Ohio Senate President Keith Faber, it was TheRump's election and the prospect of a reactionary Supreme Court that prompted Ohio GOPpers to pass the nation's strictest time-based abortion law, one that would ban abortions from the moment the heartbeat of a fetus can be detected - which usually occurs about six weeks into a pregnancy, a time when some women may not even know they are pregnant.

Typically, they did it by attaching the measure to another one intended to accomplish some good, one intended to streamline the process by which medical professionals report child abuse.

Two other states - Arkansas and North Dakota - passed similar fetal heartbeat abortion laws. Both were found to be unconstitutional in federal court. But the reactionaries don't care about things like the Constitution. They only care about power.

5.3 - Good News: peace settlement in Colombia

Good News: peace settlement in Colombia

One other piece of Good News, which I am calling Good News even though it does not involve the sense of relief that Good News often entails. You will quickly see what I mean.

Back in August, I re-wrote part of a show to fit in the breaking news that after four years of negotiations, Colombia and the rebel group called FARC had reached a final peace deal to end an internal war that had gone on for more than 50 years, killed more than 220,000 people, and driven somewhere between 5 and 8 million more from their homes.

I noted that the deal had to be approved in a plebiscite on October 2, so it was not a done deal for certain, but I said it was hard to imagine why in the face of that history anyone other than a bitter dead-ender would say no.

But it turned out there were enough bitter dead-enders. The plebiscite lost. Narrowly, but it lost. That so broke my heart to think of people so determined to continue the killing, so focused on bloody vengeance, that I never even covered the failure on the show even though I had covered the original agreement.

Now, maybe, I'm afraid to consider the possibility, but here we go again.

Just over a week ago the Colombian Congress formally ratified a revised peace agreement with FARC, capping four years of negotiations, a rejected referendum, last-minute compromises, and two signing ceremonies.

This time, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos skipped a referendum and went directly to Congress. That angered opponents, who don't like the agreement because it is not harsh enough on FARC for them. They don't want an agreement or a treaty or a peace, they want FARC to be treated like a conquered enemy.

Those opponents knew they were in the minority in Congress, so, led by former president, now senator, Alvaro Uribe, they boycotted the legislative votes, creating doubt over just how stable this new peace will be.

Part of the problem is that although the Congress ratified the peace accord, it still must pass separate laws in order to implement it, including starting the process in which the FARC rebels gather in 20 rural areas and turn over their weapons to UN observers.

Adam Isacson, a Colombia expert with the Washington Office on Latin America, said the cease-fire could deteriorate during the time it takes to get the measures through the legislative system, a period of time that could be several weeks or even some months.

For one thing, there is concern that some FARC fighters, rather than surrender their weapons, could elect to join the much-smaller rebel National Liberation Army, which has yet to open a peace process of its own with the government. On the other hand, there are fears of attacks by right-wing militias, which killed thousands of former guerrillas and labor activists following a previous peace process with the FARC in the 1980s.

Even so, even so, there is another chance to finally put an end to this madness. Unhappily, that depends on the accession of those who it appears by their opposition to it have been driven mad. Happily, theirs are not the only voices. So let's hope - because being able to have hope is how you can have Good News.

5.2 - Footnote: USA Today gets it wrong

Footnote: USA Today gets it wrong

As a footnote to that, USA Today had an editorial - and have you ever noticed how creepily condescending USA Today editorials can be? It seems that a lot of then are written by people who spend their time going "tut-tut" and Tch-tch." Anyway, they had one of their creepily condescending editorials urging that the DAPL be built, just in some "less controversial" way - without, of course, have any suggestion as to what such a way might be.

After dismissing the protests as essentially silly - I guarantee you, whatever it is you protest and however it is you do it, some voice of the establishment will call it either silly or violent and often enough both - but after dismissing the protests as essentially silly, the editors declare "pipelines fill a vital need for the economy and for America's energy security, and therefore need to be built."

That reminded me of the scene in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where Arthur Dent is lying in front of a bulldozer to keep it from demolishing his home as part of a project to build a bypass. At one point, some town official declares to him that "This bypass has gotta be built and it's gonna be built." When Arthur Dent replies "Why has it got to be built?" the official says "What do you mean 'why has it gotta be built?' It's a bypass. You gotta build bypasses."

And we, apparently "gotta build pipelines."

No, we don't. Rather, instead, we should see the win at Standing Rock as a win not only for the Lakota but also for the environmental movement, particularly for the emerging slogan "keep it in the ground" - "it" of course being fossil fuels and, I would add, uranium.

Now, no one, at least no one I have come across, is taking that slogan literally - that is, no one is saying we can immediately, instantly, stop all extraction of fossil fuels of any sort. The idea is that we should - we must - make fossil fuels our last option, not our first; that conservation and renewables must be our first choices, that we have to focus on them so that yes, oil, coal, and natural gas (and uranium) can stay in the ground where they belong.

Contrary to USA Today, the best way to fight climate change is not to ignore pipelines and the encouragement of consumption of fossil fuels they by their nature promote because they "gotta be built" and even less is it the way to, quoting the editors, let "markets figure out the best way to adapt."

Rather, the way is to Practice, Protest, Push, and Prevent: practice environmentalism as best as we can individually; protest developments and institutions that threaten environmental impacts, even if they are local; push for alternatives; and so prevent the pursuit of corporate profit from continuing to determine our ecological and climate future and that of our children.

5.1 - Good News: victory at Standing Rock

Good News: victory at Standing Rock

We'll start, as we always do where possible, with some Good News. And if you have been following the news at all, you knew this would be here.

In what must be seen as a major victory for the Standing Rock Lakota and the power of public protest, on December 4, the Army Corps of Engineers stated that it is declining to issue the easement that would have allowed the Dakota Access Pipeline, the DAPL, to tunnel under the Missouri River. The Corps of Engineers instead will conduct additional environmental reviews to consider alternate routes for, and the spill risks of, the pipeline, a process that could take a year to complete. This puts an at least temporary halt to a project that threatened both the integrity of sacred Native grounds and the tribe's supply of drinking water.

Significantly, the Corps did not actually deny the easement for the project, but said additional review is needed. That's important because it means the pipeline company can't file an appeal because the project was not formally rejected: There's nothing for them to appeal.

Opponents of the pipeline, however, fear that the victory could be short-lived, particularly since according to TheRump mouthpiece Jason Miller, the Great Orange One supports construction of the pipeline. Even so, Miller wouldn't say whether TheRump would try to reverse the Corps' decision, saying they'll review it when TheRump gets into office.

The thing is, however, that once in office, TheRump could try to cancel the review and greenlight the project, but that may not be as easy as might he think.

Energy experts say that TheRump's administration will have to either complete the full review decided on by the Corps or find a way to remove the requirement for the environmental impact assessment altogether. Doing that, however, would be highly unusual and would undoubtedly provoke a lawsuit which could tie up the project in court for years.

What all this means is that while the Corps' decision does not kill the pipeline, it will very likely delay it for at least several months. Which was likely a good part of the reason why Dave Archambault, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux, asked the thousands of protesters who have come to Standing Rock to go home for the winter rather than try to stay over the harsh North Dakota winter, which hit the Oceti Sakowin camp with a blizzard the same day as the Corps' announcement.

He also made the same appeal to the cops, asking everyone to "return home and enjoy this winter with their families" - because, it now seems clear, nothing is going to happen for a while.

However, at least some folks are declining to leave, fearing that departing will "just let air out of the movement," in the words of one. And indeed, experience shows that it is easier to sustain a movement, even if at a lower level, than it is to re-start it after it has been turned off.

The folks staying also note that the fight is not over, which is especially true in light of the fact that Energy Transfer Partners, the DAPL's developers, have their own suit in federal court in Washington, DC, insisting that the court should order the Army Corps of Engineers to grant the easements the company desires. Any decision in that suit is unlikely to come before TheRump is in office and I know of no particular reason to expect the decision, when it comes, to be a bad one, but it still hangs over the issue like a dark cloud.

There is one other aspect of this that has not gotten nearly as much attention as the protests and the construction itself: the finances, which could potentially -  could potentially - become a real problem for Energy Transfer Partners.

According to the organizers of the original Spirit Camp, if the project is not completed by January 1, a majority of the stakeholders with contracts to ship oil through the pipeline will be able to renegotiate or cancel their contracts. I think it unlikely that a significant number will look to cancel, but some may look to renegotiate, and any movement around that could make investors wary of putting more money into something that may not ultimately be a profitable as they thought it would be.

Add to that the fact that last month, a Norwegian bank called DNB, which is providing loans covering close to 10% of the cost of the project, said it "looks with worry at how the situation around the pipeline" has developed and that "if concerns raised by Native American tribes ... are not addressed," the bank will "[re]consider its further involvement in the financing of the project."

So the fight is not over and the victory on December 4 could be short-lived, but it is still a victory and it is still Good News.

What's Left #5

What's Left
for the week of December 8 to 14

This week:

Good News: victory at Standing Rock
http://fortune.com/2016/12/04/dapl-army-corps-of-engineers/
http://wpri.com/2016/12/05/trump-not-saying-what-hell-do-about-dakota-access-pipeline/
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/308884-five-things-to-watch-for-in-the-dakota-access-pipeline-fight
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/308833-opponents-seek-to-tie-up-dakota-pipeline-for-years
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-dakota-pipeline-idUSKBN13T0QX
http://www.valleynewslive.com/content/news/DAPL-protesters-Its-not-over-so-why-should-we-go-home-404895325.html
http://sacredstonecamp.org/blog/december-action

Footnote: USAToday gets it wrong
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/12/05/dakota-access-pipeline-sioux-climate-change-obama-trump-editorials-debates/95004054/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDYWdABRQIo
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/keep-it-in-the-ground/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/colombian-congress-approves-historic-peace-deal/2016/11/30/9b2fda92-b5a7-11e6-939c-91749443c5e5_story.html?utm_term=.649ced88992b

Good News: peace settlement in Colombia
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/08/2587-colombia-and-farc-sign-peace-deal.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/30/colombian-congress-ratifies-peace-deal-critics-boycott-vote.html

For the Record: harsh anti-abortion law in Ohio
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/ohio-abortion-bill/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/7/1608253/-Bill-to-ban-abortions-once-heartbeat-is-heard-goes-to-Ohio-governor-s-desk

For the Record: another state finds the poor are not drug abusers
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/12/02/welfare-drug-screening/94826672/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/search?q=drug+test

For the Record: the rich are not like us
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/porsches-for-your-wrist-inside-the-world-of-luxury-watches/2016/11/25/70218556-947f-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html

Clown Award: Christina Alesci of CNN
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2016/12/02/trump-ceo-advisers.cnnmoney/index.html
http://fair.org/home/cnn-praises-diverse-viewpoints-of-trumps-bipartisan-ceos/

Latest Clintonite excuses for losing: blame Jill Stein and millennials
http://fair.org/home/tv-pundits-eager-to-make-trump-the-new-normal/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-carrier-jobs-20161201-story.html
http://fair.org/home/spinning-bannon-as-provocateur-who-relishes-combativeness/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-trump-adviser-stephen-bannon-fiery-populism-followed-life-in-elite-circles/2016/11/19/de91ef40-ac57-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/donald-trump-deserves-more-credit-than-hes-getting-for-his-cabinet-picks/?utm_term=.7e39f2ffa271
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/yes-you-can-blame-millennials-for-hillary-clintons-loss/
http://fair.org/home/blaming-trumps-win-on-the-age-group-least-responsible-for-it/

4.5 - Excuses for failures of Democrats continue to come

Excuses for failures of Democrats continue to come

All right, something I have to deal with at least one more time.

I said last time that there have been four major excuses offered as to why Hillary Clinton lost the battle for the presidency to an unarmed opponent. I also said that this week I would go into why those excuses were either bogus or deeply flawed. I am going to do that now, but I'm going to try to be as brief as I can because I want to get past the election itself to what the response means and what we need to do from now on.

The first was "Blame 3rd parties."

This was based on an - and I use the word very advisedly - "analysis" at CNN that listed four states - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida - where they said that if Clinton got all of Jill Stein's votes and half of Gary Johnson's votes, she would have won the state. This argument was echoed by liberal darling Rachel Maddow, who said on election night that if you vote for someone who isn't going to win it means you don't care who is president.

Besides being an exercise in pure fantasy, this argument is undermined by fact.

The BBC reported that according to exit polls, only a quarter of Johnson and Stein voters would have backed Clinton if they had to pick between her and TheRump. About 15% would have backed him. And most - as much as 60% of the total - said they would have just stayed home if their only choices were those two.

The second argument was "Blame sexism."

There was a lot of that. For example, big time blogger and writer for Salon.com Amanda Marcotte said the election proved that "America would self-destruct rather than elect a female president."

Which is a rather bizarre not to say untenable argument when you remember that Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of, by latest count, about 2.5 million votes. Clearly, American voters were ready to elect a female president and it was only the geographic distribution of those voters, not their numbers, that prevented that.

A third argument was "Blame Russia."

This was based on the claim that the leak of the DNC emails was supposedly done by a Russian agency. But it was an argument made, no surprise here, without reference to the fact that it was what was in the emails that was damaging, not the leak of them. There is also an ominous undertone to the argument, which refers to the emails coming out "in dribs and drabs." But it wasn't Russia that released them to the media, it was WikiLeaks, so the argument implicates Wikileaks as being part of a Russian plot to manipulate the US elections.

Some, in fact, made the argument explicit. An op-ed in the Washington Post described Wikileaks as having "benefited financially from a Russian state propaganda arm, used Russian operatives for security and made clear an intent to harm the candidacy of Hillary Clinton" and described the email releases as "not legitimate news" but "an intelligence operation by a hostile foreign power."

What makes all this bitterly amusing is that there is evidence that John Podesta was not hacked; rather, he fell for a phishing scheme and gave away his password. He wasn't hacked, he screwed up.

The fourth argument I cited was "Blame James Comey."

There is some truth to that one: There is no question but that re-opening the wound about Clinton's private email server hurt the Clinton campaign. But again, it's an argument made without reference to the fact that the original wound, the email server itself and the crappy way it and the issue surrounding it was dealt with, was self-inflicted.

All of those have one thing in common, as I noted last time: They don't require you to look at your own failures. They don't require you to change anything. They are all about the political establishment maintaining its power and control.

Bernie Sanders

Since the last show, another claim has emerged. You shouldn't be surprised to know that this one, too, shifts the blame off of the Democratic party machine and the Clinton campaign and onto someone else.

The claim is, and this one is a bit surprising, "Blame Bernie Sanders." Bernie Sanders, who endorsed Clinton, who campaigned for her even to the point of angering some of his own supporters, is now being blamed for her losing.

An article in Time magazine actually dubbed Sanders "the Ralph Nader of 2016, the leftist most responsible for helping the Republicans win." Leave aside the fact that Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election and that the claim that he did was nothing more than a dress rehearsal for the kind of blame-shifting, responsibility-dodging we are seeing now. (If anyone wants to argue that with me, go right ahead. You will lose.) The author's argument here is that by running in the primaries, Sanders "pushed [Clinton] too far left to prevent an effective re-centering in the fall" and calls Sanders' criticism of her a "vampire effect" that "enfeebled" Clinton.

Two quick sidebars: One is that that author cites as a centrally-damaging feature of Sanders' campaign that it "treated Hillary Clinton as a compromised, Wall Street–worshipping, Establishment sellout." To which my response is "And...?"

The other sidebar, filed under the heading of "Sometimes ya gotta just laugh" is the fact that the piece is illustrated with an image of Clinton and Sanders campaigning for her side by side in North Carolina the week before the election. They must have airbrushed out the bite marks on her neck.

Sanders enfeebling Clinton in NC the week before 11/8

Getting back to the point, though, the argument being made, in short, is that it was inherently wrong, inherently invalid, inherently destructive, inherently inappropriate for anyone to challenge Hillary Clinton from the left. Not, I emphasize, simply to challenge her - the author mentions John Kerry and Joe Biden as "deferring" to Clinton but gives no hint that they would have "enfeebled" her like a vampire had they run - but that it is inherently unacceptable to challenge her from the left.

It's not just some aggrieved Clintonite going with this: During an appearance on "CBS This Morning" on November 14, Sanders was asked if he feels any responsibility for Clinton losing because after all, he did criticize her, you know. The implication, again, was dare you challenge the candidate of the establishment and it's your fault if anything goes wrong.

This is all about a political and social establishment maintaining and keeping power and being unwilling to brook any real challenge to that power, even if it comes from within that same establishment.

You want some evidence of that? Well, Bernie Sanders himself is of course one; as I pointed out all the way back in February,

[h]e is a sitting US Senator, a former member of the House, with something like a 33-year history in elective office, 25 of those at the federal level.

He is a member of the establishment.

You want another, more immediate, one? How about this:

The White House had indicated that it is opposed to Rep. Keith Ellison becoming chair of the DNC, saying he is "the wrong messenger." They suggested instead outgoing Labor Secretary Tom Perez and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

Ellison endorsed Sanders in the primaries. The other two both acted as Clinton surrogates during the general election.

It is about maintaining power against a challenge.

By the way, I include mainstream media, comfortably and profitably settled in the twin roles of stenographers and gatekeepers to power, as part of that same establishment.

Rep. Keith Ellison

Look, in considering the outcome of the election and the question of what we - we of the left - are up against and should look to do, something we have to realize is that the sort of fears and frustrations that Sanders articulated and that TheRump fed on like a parasite are real, they are just as real as the bigotries that he also fed on, fears and frustrations based on a real sense of and a real fact of economic and social insecurity and underneath that of economic inequality.

I'm reminded of the furor in 2008 over Obama saying that voters in rural Pennsylvania "cling to guns or religion." He got a lot of heat for it but his point, not as well explained as it might have been, was valid: When people feel that the things they have relied on, have counted on, things like stable jobs and stable communities and the conviction that their children will have a better life than they have had, when they feel those things are dissolving before their eyes, turning into loose sand slipping through their fingers, they will hold more tightly - they will cling - to those things they feel they still have, can still control. And they will tend to become more fearful, more suspicious, of anyone or anything different, because "different" means "change" which has come to mean "threat." It is an entirely natural human reaction to stress.

But there's a kicker here, but to get to that I have to make a quick detour.

Another claim circulating recently, this one among the left, is that TheRump's election is to be blamed on white people. That is was white people who elected TheRump.

Well, yes, it is true that a majority of whites, including a majority of white women, voted for TheRump. But they were not the only ones. According to exit polls cited by the New York Times, 29% of Latinos, 29% of Asians, and 8% of blacks also voted for TheRump.

Yes, Clinton won all those constituencies handily - but here is the point: She did just about as well among whites as Obama did in 2012. But she did did seven percentage points worse with blacks - a deficit amplified by the fact that black turnout was down, so she got a smaller percentage of a smaller number. She also did 8 points worse with Latinos, 11 points worse with Asians, and five points worse among young voters.

A different comparison of exit polls had each of those deficits about two points smaller but just as real.

Those differences between 2012 and 2016 and the potential impact they had on the outcome cannot be ignored. The blunt fact is, Clinton failed to turn out and to hold the support of her own base.

So here's the kicker, the bottom line of what the Clinton campaign and the whole damn self-serving liberal political establishment got wrong: All that talk about the fears and frustrations, all that talk about economic stress, about the loss of things you had counted on, about the loss of hope that your children will have a better life, all that talk doesn't just apply to white people!

It wasn't that the Dummycrats ignored the economic concerns of white people, it's that they ignored the economic concerns of non-white people.

Yes, blacks are concerned about racism and police violence, but that's not all they are concerned about.

Yes, Latinos are concerned about bigotry and immigration, but that's not all they are concerned about.

Yes, women are concerned about sexism and sexual violence, but that's not all they are concerned about.

Yes, LGBTQ folks are concerned about discrimination and the rate of suicide, but that's not all they are concerned about.

Yes, Muslims are concerned about xenophobia and Islamophobia, but that's not all they are concerned about.

People are also concerned about providing a life for themselves, a secure home for their families, a future for their children. And that is what the liberal political establishment did not address.

Which means, to put a perhaps finer point on it, it's not that they ignored the economic concerns of non-white people, it's that they ignored that non-white people have economic concerns.

Why? Because they thought they could take us - all of us, all of us on the left who know that the changes we need lie in more than half, hell, quarter, measures and all of us they thought they could buy off with pretty words and paltry promises about a justice that is coming in spite of them, not because of them - because they thought they could take us for granted. And because they would rather look to maintain their power and control through appeals to social justice - which would not affect them or their privileged position - rather than to economic justice - which would.

Let me be clear, at least as clear as I can be: I am not saying, as I would surely be accused, of dissing or sneering at what is called "identity politics" and urging it be dropped in favor of so-called "lunchpail politics." I'm not because I don't see the need to make the choice. In fact, I see the need not to make the choice. I have said I don't know how many times that if I could sum up my goal in a single word, that word would be "justice." But justice in it's truest sense, economic, social, and political, because without all three, it's not justice.

That's what we have to recognize; it's what the political establishment refuses to because it would affect their power and their position. These people are not on your side. They will support you - us - to the degree that does not affect their privileged positions - and no further. They are not on your side.

Alright, I'm begun to ramble here so I will cut myself off. I'm going to try to leave aside election analysis from now on - or until another election - but I do want to over time keep coming back to some of the for lack of a better term "big questions."

I also think I might pull out some old stuff: I ran for Congress a couple of times and I've been thinking about pulling out some of the proposals I made then to see how well they have held up. I'm sure you're looking forward to it.

4.4 - Outrage of the Week: Standing Rock

Outrage of the Week: Standing Rock

I have been meaning to talk about this week after week and have failed to do so. But it has become such a huge moral and ethical outrage that silence simply is not an option.

I am talking about the brutal violence and repression being visited on the peaceful protesters at Standing Rock.

The issue, as I expect you must know, revolves around a $3.8 billion project to build an oil pipeline, called the Dakota Access Pipeline or DAPL, across four states, from North Dakota to Illinois, from where the crude oil will be transported to refineries via railroad tank cars and an existing pipeline. It likely then will be sold overseas.

The pipeline route crosses Sioux land that was granted to the tribe by the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1857 but later was taken away without agreement from or ceding of land by the tribe. (I'd add that rather than "granted," it would be better to say the land was "guaranteed" to the tribe because "granted" implies the land was ours to give - which it wasn't. We simply took it.)

In April, concerned over the prospect of damage to sacred sites and the safety of the water presented by the project, members of the Standing Rock Lakota Nation and some allies established a Spirit Camp at Sacred Rock near Lake Oahe, where the pipeline is to tunnel under the Missouri River, which is the tribe's main source of drinking water.

There has been an encampment there ever since, protesting the pipeline and calling for it to be halted or at the very least rerouted.

Interestingly, a alternative route north of Bismarck had been proposed originally but it was rejected because of its proximity to water supply areas, a consideration that was not extended to the Standing Rock Lakota.

In the months since, the Natives and their allies, both Native and non-Native who have joined them, who jointly call themselves water protectors, have been subjected to increasing levels of mistreatment and violence by officials even as they themselves remained almost entirely peaceful. It has been bad enough that at least two among the police have quit rather than continue to take part and some police forces have refused to provide additional personnel to back up North Dakota cops.

Between August and the end of November, police made nearly 575 arrests, including at least seven journalists, creating, officials now whine, an unprecedented burden for the state's court system. (Remember what I said a few weeks ago about maybe having to fill the jails?)

Things came to a head in a way on November 20. That evening, protesters tried to move a burned-out truck that officials had placed across the roadway to keep the water protectors from approaching the work area down the road. The police responded with rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, pepper spray, explosive tear gas grenades, and water cannons despite the fact the temperature was well below freezing.

Over 300 people were injured. Twenty-six were taken to local hospitals.

Hilariously, Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier claimed "We don't have water cannons" and "this is just a fire hose" as if that was supposed to make a real difference and that, get this, "It was sprayed more as a mist, and we didn't want to get it directly on them, but we wanted to make sure to use it as a measure to help keep everybody safe."

So you see, it was for their own good that they were soaked in water in subfreezing temperatures.

But the protesters still wouldn't go away, the encampment still would not disappear. So officials have upped the ante.

On November 25, the Army Corps of Engineers demanded that thousands of people clear out of a second camp, known as Oceti Sakowin, or Seven Council Fires, located on land the Corps controls.

Three days later, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple declared that the camp must be evacuated immediately.

That was followed up by the Morton County Sheriff's Department saying it would begin to block supplies from reaching the camps. They backed off that later, saying they would merely impose a fine of $1000 on anyone bringing in supplies.

So officials couldn't wait the encampment out, they couldn't drive it out, they couldn't order it our, now they will try to starve it out.

And oh, look, they learned something:

Oceti Sakowin

The Corps of Engineers said the eviction order was to "prevent death, illness, or serious injury to inhabitants of encampments due to the harsh North Dakota winter conditions." Gov. Dalrymple said the camp's semi-permanent shelters were not "suitable for winter habitation" under the state's building codes.

So you see, it's all about public health and safety! About inadequate shelter! About building codes! Not at all about politics or serving the interests of our corporate masters, no!

Those of us with reasonably long memories will recall that this is exactly the same sort of claim that was used to crush the Occupy encampments: that they had to be demolished for the health and safety of the people in the encampments.

It remains to be seen how successful this reprise will be. On December 4, a date that may well have passed before you see this, as many as 2,000 veterans will gather at Standing Rock for a three-day "muster" to act as human shields between protesters and the cops.

One veteran intending to take part, Loreal Black Shawl, said "Okay, are you going to treat us veterans who have served our country in the same way as you have those water protectors?"

That too, remains to be seen.

What is long since obvious is that this pipeline should be stopped and the permit to drill under Lake Oahe and the Missouri River should be denied and that what has been going on at Standing Rock is an absolute outrage.