How To Rip The GOP And Their Hero Ronald Reagan Apart

The Post-Trump Era

David Brooks

This is a wonderful moment to be a conservative. For decades now the Republican Party has been groaning under the Reagan orthodoxy, which was right for the 1980's but has become increasingly obsolete. The Reagan worldview was based on the idea that a rising economic tide would lift all boats. But that’s clearly no longer true.

We’ve gone from Rising Tide America to Coming Apart America. Technological change, globalization and social and family breakdown mean that the benefits of growth, to the extent there is growth, are not widely shared.

Republicans sort of recognize this reality, but they are still imprisoned in the Reaganite model. They ask Reaganite questions, propose Reaganite policies and have Reaganite instincts.

Now along comes Donald Trump, an angel of destruction, to blow it all to smithereens. He represents not only a rejection of the existing Reaganite establishment, but also a rejection of Reaganite foreign policy (he is less globalist) and Reaganite domestic policy (he is friendlier to the state).

Trumpism will not replace Reaganism, though. Trump is prompting what Thomas Kuhn, in his theory of scientific revolutions, called a model crisis.

According to Kuhn, intellectual progress is not steady and gradual. It’s marked by sudden paradigm shifts. There’s a period of normal science when everybody embraces a paradigm that seems to be working. Then there’s a period of model drift: As years go by, anomalies accumulate and the model begins to seem creaky and flawed.

Then there’s a model crisis, when the whole thing collapses. Attempts to patch up the model fail. Everybody is in anguish, but nobody knows what to do.

That’s where the Republican Party is right now. Everybody talks about being so depressed about Trump. But Republicans are passive and psychologically defeated. That’s because their conscious and unconscious mental frameworks have just stopped working. Trump has a monopoly on audacity, while everyone else is immobile.

But Trump has no actual ideas or policies. There is no army of Trumpists out there to carry on his legacy. He will almost certainly go down to a devastating defeat, either in the general election or — God help us — as the worst president in American history.

At that point the G.O.P. will enter what Kuhn called the revolution phase. During these moments you get a proliferation of competing approaches, a willingness to try anything. People ask different questions, speak a different language, congregate around a new paradigm that is incommensurate with the last.

That’s where the G.O.P. is heading. So this is a moment of anticipation. The great question is not, Should I vote for Hillary or sit out this campaign? The great question is, How do I prepare now for the post-Trump era?

The first step clearly is mental purging: casting aside many existing mental categories and presuppositions, to shift your identity from one with a fixed mind-set to one in which you are a seeker and open to anything. The second step is probably embedding: going out and seeing America again with fresh eyes and listening to American voices with fresh ears, paying special attention to that nexus where the struggles of Trump supporters overlap with the struggles of immigrants and African-Americans.

This is a moment for honesty. Valuably, Trump has exposed the rottenness of the consultant culture, and the squirrelly way politicians now talk to us. This is a moment for revived American nationalism. Trump’s closed, ethnic nationalism is dominant because Iraq, globalization and broken immigration policies have discredited the expansive open form of nationalism that usually dominates American culture.

This is also a moment for redefined compassion. Trump is loveless. There is no room for reciprocity and love in his worldview. There is just winning or losing, beating or being beaten.

It is as if he was a person who received no love and tried to compensate through competition. That is an ugly, freakish and untenable representation of the human condition. Somehow the Republican Party will have to rediscover a language of loving thy neighbor, which is a primary ideal in our culture, and a primary longing of the heart.

This is also a moment for sociology. Reaganism was very economic, built around tax policies, enterprise zones and the conception of the human being as a rational, utility-driven individual. The Adam Smith necktie was the emblem of that movement.

It might be time to invest in Émile Durkheim neckties, because today’s problems relate to binding a fragmenting society, reweaving family and social connections, relating across the diversity of a globalized world. Homo economicus is a myth and conservatism needs a worldview that is accurate about human nature.

We’re going to have two parties in this country. One will be a Democratic Party that is moving left. The other will be a Republican Party. Nobody knows what it will be, but it’s exciting to be present at the re-creation.

Keith Olbermann Returns And Perfectly Explains Why Donald Trump Will Not Win

By Jason Easley

Keith Olbermann returned to talking about politics, with an appearance on The View where he perfectly explained why Donald Trump won't win. 

Olbermann said, “Because of the premise of the campaign, I don’t think he has a reasonable chance of being elected. At this point, from what I’m hearing, I don’t even think he’s going to get the nomination. Because I think the Republican Party is going to say, everybody who is in the Republican Party goes if he wins, we all lose our jobs. If he loses, we all lose our jobs. He’s probably not going to win. Let’s make sure he doesn’t lose. We’re going to lose the party to him one way or another. Everybody in the Republican Party, in the establishment, has a self-interest in keeping him away because he could bring down congressional results.”

Keith Olbermann also shot down Trump threat of riots if he is denied the nomination, “To be fair, who are the people who are supporting him, generally speaking? What I’m saying is they’re mostly people who can’t really be trusted to find their own homes again once they leave them.”

The former ESPN/MSNBC anchor explained that Republicans are really good at preventing things that are supposed to happen from happening. Olbermann said, “This is their own house. This isn’t some governmental agency. They can do what they want. They can change the rules….Whatever rule they need to make to make sure that he doesn’t get the nomination.”

Olbermann was 100% right. The only path that Trump has to the Republican nomination is getting 1,237 delegates. If Trump doesn’t reach the magic number, Republicans will make sure that he is not the nominee. Olbermann’s comments on The View should remind those on the left of why his presence is so sorely missed on television. In a corporate media landscape that is dominated by conservative talking heads, Olbermann brings outstanding broadcasting skills and a point of view that is nearly invisible in the mass media landscape.

In the election cycle of Trump, the American people need to hear the voices of those of the left who are being intentionally shut out of the corporate media.

Lawnmower + Explosives + Shotgun = Amputation

NRA leader Wayne La Pierre was speaking recently about how American gun owners are the smartest people in the world. He may not have met Presley, a Georgia man who loaded up his lawnmower with explosives and shot it with a shotgun, losing a leg in the process. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down.



"A Walton County man's leg was severed just below the knee with a piece of shrapnel when he and his friends blew up a lawn mower.

Media outlets report the incident happened Wednesday afternoon in a rural area between Monroe and Bethlehem.

According to reports from the sheriff's office, the men were using Tannerite to blow up the lawn mower. Tannerite is a combination of chemicals sold legally at most sporting goods stores.

One of the men told deputies they put three pounds of Tannerite inside the mower and 32 year old David Presley shot a gun at the Tannerite to ignite an explosion.

A piece of shrapnel hit Presley's leg, severing it. Presley had to be airlifted to Grady Hospital in Atlanta, where his condition was unavailable Wednesday.”

http://newschannel9.com/news/offbeat/walton-county-mans-leg-severed-while-blowing-up-lawn-mower

Impact Wrestling 3/15/16

Jimmy Kimmel's Fake Ad Hilariously Points Out Cruz And Trump Are One And The Same

When both of your options are awful, it can be hard to find the silver lining.

 

By Kali Holloway / AlterNet

Photo Credit: Salon.com

Republicans, who have no one but themselves to blame for the titanic disaster that is Donald Trump, also have no one but themselves to blame for the gigantic disaster that is Ted Cruz. But desperate times call for desperate measures, so they’re doing what they can to help what they perceive to be the less massive disaster win.

A few weeks ago, that entailed having Mitt Romney come out to defame Trump and speak glowingly about pretty much anyone else running on the GOP ticket.

Now, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel has unveiled a parody commercial featuring Mittens trying hard to highlight the differences between the two candidates. That task, it turns out, isn’t easy. On account of both of them being awful. And just the worst.

Watch the fake ad in its entirety, below.

Who are the pickpockets prowling your city's airport?

Posted by Jim Hightower

Listen to this Commentary

 

If you take the word f-r-e-e and rip the "r" out of it, what do you get? Two things, actually: One, instead of "free" you get "fee" – and then you get mad.

This is happening to millions of airline passengers who're discovering that the advertised price of a ticket is not the half of it. Beaucoup fees have been added, charging us for items that previously were (and still should be) free. People's rage-ometers zing into the red zone when they see that these fees-for-former-freebies will often more than double the cost of a trip.

Like diabolical bankers did years ago, top executives of airline corporations have learned to goose up prices and profits (as well as their own pay) by nickel-and-diming customers. Only, their fees are way more than nickel and dimes. For example, if you schedule a flight, but something comes up and you have to change the time, day, or destination of your trip – BAM! – airlines zap you with a $200 fee.

Basically for nothing! Computers quickly make the change, costing the corporation a mere pittance, but rather than graciously accommodating your need and making you a satisfied customer, they pick your pocket and make you angry.

Gouging and infuriating ticket buyers might seem like a poor business model for the long run, but airline CEO's these days insist that their duty is not to please consumers, but only to make their major stockholders happy by maximizing their short term profits. And, indeed, the ripoff is very lucrative for the corporate elite – airlines pocketed nearly $3 billion last year just from fees they charged passengers who needed to alter their flights.

To curtail this "Great American Plane Robbery," several senators have proposed a "FAIR Fees Act."

For information contact Sen. Ed Markey's office: 202-224-2742 or www.markey.senate.gov.

"As Passenger Ire Rises, Bill Is Introduced to Restrict 'Ridiculous' Airline Fees," The New York Times, March 9, 2016.

"Reservation Cancellation/Change Fees by Airline 2015," www.rita.dot.gov, December 15, 2015.

"Airlines Are Swimming in Profits Thanks to Cheap Fuel, High Fees," www.time.com, January 21, 2016.

Keiser Report: Trump Addicted America

Check Keiser Report website for more: http://www.maxkeiser.com/

In this episode of the Keiser Report Max and Stacy ask what’s the matter with Kansas? And Virginia? North Carolina? Florida? Alabama? Michigan and Massachusetts? Are voters flocking to Donald Trump because they’re racist? Or, is it the economy and so-called ‘free trade’ deals, stupid? In the second half Max continues his interview with Satyajit Das, author of Extreme Money and A Banquet of Consequences about the coming market collapse.

Tesla VS Edison Mortal Kombat Style

The GOP’s blocking of Supreme Court pick is indefensible

By GEORGE F. WILL

The Republican Party’s incoherent response to the Supreme Court vacancy is a partisan reflex in search of a justifying principle. The multiplicity of Republican rationalizations for their refusal to even consider Merrick Garland radiates insincerity.

Republicans instantly responded to Antonin Scalia’s death by proclaiming that no nominee, however admirable in temperament, intellect and experience, would be accorded a hearing. They say their obduracy is right because: Because they have a right to be obdurate, there being no explicit constitutional proscription against this.

Or because President Obama’s demonstrated contempt for the Constitution’s explicit text and for implicit constitutional manners justifies Republicans reciprocating with contempt for his Supreme Court choice, regardless of its merits. Or because, 24 years ago, then-Sen. Joe Biden - he is not often cited by Republicans seeking validation - suggested that a president’s right to nominate judges somehow expires, or becomes attenuated, in a “political season,” sometime after the midterm elections during a second presidential term.

Or because if a Republican president tried to fill a court vacancy during his eighth year, Democrats would behave the way Republicans are behaving.

In their tossed salad of situational ethics, the Republicans’ most contradictory and least conservative self justification is: The court’s supposedly fragile legitimacy is endangered unless the electorate speaks before a vacancy is filled.

This legal doctrine actually is germane to Garland. He is the most important member (chief judge) of the nation’s second-most important court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the importance of which derives primarily from its caseload of regulatory challenges. There Garland has practiced what too many conservatives have preached - “deference” in the name of“judicial restraint” toward Congress, and toward the executive branch and its appendages in administering congressional enactments. 

Named for a 1984 case, Chevron deference unleashes the regulatory state by saying that agencies charged with administering statutes are entitled to deference when they interpret supposedly ambiguous statutory language.

Of the last 25 justices confirmed, beginning with Dwight Eisenhower’s 1954 nomination of Earl Warren as chief justice, Garland, 63, is the second oldest nominee. (Lewis Powell was 64 when Richard Nixon selected him in 1971.) The average age of the 25 was 53. So, Obama’s reach into the future through Garland is apt to be more limited than it would be with a younger nominee.

Republicans who vow to deny Garland a hearing and who pledge to support Donald Trump if he is their party’s nominee are saying: Democracy somehow requires that this vacancy on a non-majoritarian institution must be filled only after voters have had their say through the election of the next president. And constitutional values will be served if the vacancy is filled not by Garland but by someone chosen by President Trump, a stupendously uninformed dilettante who thinks judges “sign” what he refers to as “bills.”

Trump’s multiplying Republican apologists do not deny the self-evident - that he is as clueless regarding everything as he is about the nuclear triad. These invertebrate Republicans assume that as president he would surround himself with people unlike himself - wise and temperate advisers. So, we should wager everything on the hope that the man who says his “number one” foreign policy adviser is “myself” (because “I have a very good brain”) will succumb to humility and rely on people who actually know things. If Republicans really think that either their front-runner or the Democrats would nominate someone superior to Garland, it would be amusing to hear them try to explain why they do.

George Will’s email address is georgewill@washpost.com

The Incredible Trump

Wrath Of The Abyss Demo

Control two heroes as they venture into the land of the Abyss and they try to stay alive for as long as possible

Wrath of the Abyss is a top-down 2D arcade game that will likely satisfy anyone who wants to destroy at least two keyboards every day.

Wrath of the Abyss is an arcade game that generates the level every time you start it. It’s not the kind of game that you played before, but if you manage to get past the unexpected deaths, that come from all kinds of dangers and enemies, you might enjoy it.

It’s no doubt that the people who are going to try Wrath of the Abyss and like it are gluttons for punishment. It’s an incredibly difficult game, and there is no learning curve. You just start the game and die over and over again, until you either quit or you start to understand what you have to do to survive.

Story and gameplay

It turns out that an archmage named Lutis has severed the land of the Abyss from the rest of the mortal plane. It’s been lost for thousands of years, and it became populated with all kinds of creatures, monsters and dangers.

For some unknown reason, the land of the Abyss is once more accessible, so a couple of adventures went through a portal in search of glories and riches. And then they die in the first few minutes. This should be the story.

Fortunately, players can choose to reload the same level, so it might be a little bit easier a second time. In any case, if you exit the game you won’t be able to find the same level unless you save the progress.

Players will find chests with items and weapons, but for the most part, it’s just them against all the others. It’s not an easy game, and it makes no promises.

The fact that it’s not using an advanced game engine is hampering the experience somewhat. The hit boxes don’t seem to be all that precise and in this game every hit matters.

If you want some punishment, and you think that you have to be good at something, you might want to give Wrath of the Abyss a go.

5 screenshots

Wrath of the Abyss Demo was reviewed by Silviu Stahie 2.5/5

 Last updated on March 21st, 2016 http://games.softpedia.com/get/Games-Demo/Wrath-of-the-Abyss.shtml#download

Here’s Bernie Sanders Official Plan To Win — And How You Can Help

By Nathan Wellman

The Bernie Sanders campaign has had tremendous grassroots support from various sources, but his campaign is now kicking the effort into high gear.

Grassroots tools

Among all the usual methods of reaching voters, supporters are being encouraged to host what is called a “barnstorm” event to organize volunteers. These events are described as “a 90-minute organizing meeting designed to sign up everybody in the room to contact voters for Bernie. Whether it be through phone banking or canvassing. The events are fun, high-energy and easy to execute.” Information for hosting barnstorm events can be found here.

Residents of upcoming primary and caucus states can use these events to distribute directions and information for traditional methods of campaigning — canvassing for local primaries and phone banking to reach voters across the country.

Putting March 15 in perspective

The call to action was promptly picked up by the Reddit community, which has become a hub of logistical support for the Sanders campaign, building websites and Facebook pages, phone banking, fundraising, etc. A “corporal” of Maine’s branch of the “Bernie Squad” put Tuesday’s losses in perspective while outlining a “plausible path to victory.”

Regarding Tuesday’s results, they said “Expectations were high after the Michigan upset, so the loss may feel worse than it really was. We did far better in NC than expected. Polls showed a 30% loss and we got a 15% loss. We also exceeded poll numbers in a few other states.”

The briefing heavily emphasized the importance of volunteering, making a point to mention that “some of our huge gains and upsets are due largely to the activism we’ve seen” while encouraging supporters with the astounding fact that “Bernie 2016 has the largest voter contact machine in known campaign history.”

They added, “We’re on track to beat the Obama 2008 record of 100 million (phone calls), which included the general election.”

Bernie Sanders’ must-win states

The campaign will need all the grassroots help it can get. According to the New York Times, most of the coming contests throughout the remainder of March are favorable to Bernie Sanders throughout the end of March. However, Clinton will still likely have a small delegate lead, as states award Democratic delegates proportionally, rather than as a winner-take-all system:

Mr. Sanders is clearly favored to exceed his target — the roughly 16-point, 58-to-42 percent margin of victory — in six of the eight contests over the next month. He’s a strong favorite in the caucuses in Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington and Wyoming.

Barack Obama won an average of 72 percent of the vote in these contests in 2008, and so far Mr. Sanders is running an average of four points behind Mr. Obama’s showing in caucus states. Mr. Sanders is also a strong favorite in the Utah primary.

Combined, these six states hold 216 delegates. Mr. Sanders might hope to win them by a 2-to-1 margin — perhaps narrowing Mrs. Clinton’s lead by 65 to 70 delegates.

The Times, however, predicted that Sanders would come across formidable Clinton support in both Wisconsin and Arizona, where Clinton has a strong polling advantage. And while Sanders has the clear lead in small-delegate states, the end of the primary will be highly competitive in states where lots more delegates are at stake. The Times estimates Sanders will need to win some of these larger states by convincing margins to truly capture the nomination from Clinton:

The preponderance of delegates will be from the diverse, affluent, blue states along or near the coasts, like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and the District of Columbia.

Based on the results so far, including those from Tuesday night, Mr. Sanders is not a favorite to win big in any of those. He’ll need to beat Mrs. Clinton by at least an average of 10 percentage points, and perhaps more if he under-performs in the other states mentioned.

However, the Sanders campaign has a lot of firepower left in terms of its money advantage. Sanders surpassed Hillary Clinton’s fundraising by $5 million in January, and then raised $43 million in February compared to Clinton’s $30 million. Sanders also pointed out on his website in February that the majority of Clinton’s donors have already put in the maximum contribution of $2,700, meaning Sanders capacity to fundraise is even greater still compared to Clinton.

The media has been trying to sing funeral dirges for Bernie’s campaign for months, and this week has been no exception. However, the movement’s continued enthusiasm and diligence seem to suggest that more historic surprises are not only likely, but inevitable.

Hillary Clinton Is Not Entitled To The Votes Of Bernie Sanders Supporters

By Tom Cahill

Hillary Clinton and her supporters would like to assume that if the former Secretary of State does end up with the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders’ base will fall in line and vote for Clinton to stop Trump. But they are wrong.

First off, it’s important to shut down the myth of Clinton’s inevitability as the eventual general election opponent to Donald Trump. The Democratic presidential primary is only halfway over, and Bernie Sanders has 42 percent of the pledged delegates thus far.

Even the New York Times — which has publicly endorsed Clinton’s campaign and whose public editor called out the paper for showing an obvious pro-Clinton bias in a recent stealth editing job — admits Sanders can still end up as the nominee, and they laid out a path for how he could do it.

Writing off Sanders’ chances now and telling his supporters that they have no choice but to unite behind Clinton is premature.

Aside from that, many of Bernie Sanders’ supporters aren’t Democrats. Sanders himself has identified as an independent throughout his entire career, with the exception of the 2016 election.

And he’ll be the first to tell you that he only ran as a Democrat so the media would perceive him as a serious challenger to Hillary Clinton. Likewise, his supporters are largely independents and young voters under the age of 35, and roughly half of those young voters identify as independents, despite their tendency to lean leftward in their politics.

In fact, between 2004 and 2014, the percentage of young voters who identified as independent rather than Democrat jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent. And in all of the states Bernie Sanders has won, and even the states he’s lost by considerable margins, like Virginia and Tennessee, he’s still managed to capture a wide majority of independents and voters under the age of 35. It’s unrealistic to expect these largely independent voters to switch to the Democratic Party and vote for an elite member of the Democratic establishment.

And, let’s be honest — the entire reason so many Bernie Sanders supporters are so ardently anti-Hillary Clinton might be because of her refusal to strongly oppose the corrupt campaign finance system Bernie rages against. Clinton’s top campaign donors include criminal Wall Street banks like Citibank and Goldman Sachs, and corporate-owned media companies like Time Warner and 21st Century Fox. While Sanders is raising millions of $27 donations from the grassroots, Clinton raised money from Wall Street on at least 31 different occasions between the start of her campaign and the end of February.

Asking the supporters of the anti-Wall Street candidate who rejects Super PAC's to suddenly back a pro-Wall Street candidate who embraces the Super PAC system would be asking them to betray their core values. This is likely why a full third of Bernie Sanders’ supporters refuse to back Clinton if she’s the nominee.

Hillary Clinton is unable to bring in new blood to the Democratic Party like Bernie Sanders has done. In the last 11 primary contests, 7 states have gone to Clinton and 4 have gone to Sanders. As the below table shows, turnout for all of the states Clinton won is down significantly from 2008, the last time there was a contested Democratic presidential primary. Yet in three of the last four states Bernie Sanders won, turnout was up by as much as 49 percent:



The numbers speak for themselves: The Democratic Party is in for a shellacking if they end up nominating Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders has proven himself to be the one candidate capable of uniting the Democratic Party in his ability to bring in fresh faces, his consistently higher numbers when pitted against Republicans in hypothetical general election matchups, and a message that resonates with future generations. 

Students Participate In One Of The First Human Feeding Trials Of Genetically Engineered Bananas

By Angie Carter, Anha Kruzic, Rivka Fidel, Food First

 

Students are helping to investigate GE health claims — one banana at a time.

A recent controversy about an upcoming genetically engineered (GE) banana study at Iowa State University (ISU) highlights public universities’ reluctance to engage with students in critical dialogue. Several graduate students, over the course of the last year, have raised critical questions about the claims made by ISU administrators and others that the GE banana study will save lives. The research will test the bioavailability of beta carotene in bananas genetically engineered to contain more of the Vitamin A precursor. The study recruited 12 female ISU students (ages 18-40) to eat GE bananas in return for $900. This study is one of the first human feeding trials of GE products and the first feeding trial of the GE banana.

The students also recently delivered 57,309 petition signatures to ISU in conjunction with a parallel delivery to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle by AGRA Watch and the Community Alliance for Global Justice. Critics of the initial questions and subsequent petition delivery use an increasingly common argument that critical questions about GE technology are somehow “anti-science.” Several GE proponents also accused students and activists involved in the delivery of using their white privilege to keep Africans hungry and malnourished.

Yes, students are privileged to ask these questions. The opportunity to engage in a scientific dialogue is a powerful privilege. This privilege compels us to ask difficult questions about the ethical dimensions of this GE banana research process, as well as its impacts and other viable alternatives.

Last year, the concerned ISU graduate students drafted scientific questions investigating how the study would be conducted and potential effects the GE bananas could have on Ugandan food systems.

Their questions are not about whether the use of biotechnology is morally right or wrong, or if the researchers are good or bad people. At their heart, these questions are about social, economic and environmental impacts that this kind of research will have upon real people in real places. Hunger and malnutrition are not only biological challenges, they are social problems rooted in inequality.

The questions boil down to four main queries: (1) How will GE bananas impact nutrition and hunger in Uganda, or how will ISU and/or the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation address this question? (2) How was the technology determined to be a culturally appropriate intervention? (3) Who will own or control this technology upon its development? and (4) How should public universities be involved in GE biofortification and testing?

These questions highlight the need for a public dialogue on our campuses about the role of power in the scientific process. Claims made by ISU officials that this research will save lives are premature and a smokescreen to deflect students’ questions. These claims are made without any grounding in research or recognition of the power differential between their privileged positions as tenured faculty, deans, or department chairs and the would-be recipients of their GE hunger “solutions.” The claims ignore the ways in which the incessant battle to convince communities across the world to accept GE technology as a one-size-fits-all solution to complex social problems is itself a privileged perspective.

Such far-reaching claims are not only unscientific but may lead to dangerous assumptions. These claims have also falsely implied that students, in asking their questions, attempted to directly malign the study’s primary researcher. Aligning the ISU students’ critical questions with attacks on the researcher is a sabotage of the scientific process itself.

GE proponents’ over-simplified approach poses risks to us all. Genetic engineering, in some cases, may be an appropriate technology that helps to solve agricultural and human health problems. Yet, for this approach to be scientific, it must incorporate – and take part in dialogue about – the social, economic, and environmental consequences associated with this technology.

No scientific study is free from the social, political, and cultural context in which it is conducted. We must be able to have meaningful critiques, pulling from multiple scientific disciplines, that challenge GE technology, including its potential uses, as well as interrogating who controls, owns, and benefits from it.

Science is a negotiation – an iterative process rooted in asking questions, in testing hypotheses and counter-hypotheses. Thus it is crucial that scientists and students of science – regardless of status, expertise, or background – be able to ask critical questions regarding each other’s work without fear of vitriolic retribution or retaliation.

We need a long view that takes into account social inequality and includes space for critical dialogue. No single crop, GE or otherwise, will solve the fundamental problems of hunger and malnutrition.

There is a great deal of evidence that a more diversified agriculture – a system that places women’s empowerment and food sovereignty at its center – is likely to be more successful in the long term in achieving these ends. Many in agriculture and food systems scientists acknowledge that we need more research and development in alternative agricultural solutions.

To raise questions about the safety, utility, as well as the social and ecological consequences of GE is scientifically valid, and not akin to wanting people to go hungry or become malnourished. While administrators at public universities, philanthropic organizations, and private corporations talk about “saving lives,” many others want to talk about rebuilding their lives on their own terms, through agroecological methods and food sovereignty. As such, we should be investing in these endeavors just as we invest in GE technology.

It is essential that there is a space at public universities, with large philanthropic organizations, and in broader society where students, academics, and activists can ask difficult questions in the name of a more sustainable and equitable food system without being labeled as unscientific or accused of misusing their privilege.

Related Stories

• Five Myths About What You Should and Shouldn't Eat
• Nonorganic Foods Have Pesticide Residue — but Is It Bad for You?
• The Dark Side of Juicing: How the Global Trend Might Be Bad for Your Health—and the Environment

Watch The Bernie Sanders Speech The Networks Won't Show You

By Arturo Garcia

 

This is what you might have seen if all the networks weren't carrying Trump.

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was among the presidential candidates speaking on Tuesday night. But as the Young Turks reported during their coverage of the evening’s primaries, national media outlets refused to show his remarks.

While the Turks showed the majority of the senator’s rally in Phoenix, other networks instead opted to cover Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s speech even before it took place.

 

Watch the speech in its entirety, as posted online,below.

 

Related Stories

• Matt Taibbi: 'How the New York Times Sandbagged Bernie Sanders'
• Naomi Klein Takes Down Hillary Clinton: ‘I Don’t Trust Her on Climate at All’ (VIDEO)
• Another Indigenous Activist Is Assassinated, Urging Calls for Clinton to Come Clean on Role in Honduran Coup

Obama Destroys His Legacy With Corporate-Friendly Supreme Court Pick

After a month of speculation, President Obama has made his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia.  That person is Judge Merrick Garland, who comes from the corporate defense law firm of Arnold & Porter.  With this pick, Obama has secured his legacy as a corporate appeaser.  Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Follow more of our stories at http://www.TROFIRE.com

Marco Rubio Suspends His Campaign After Florida Blowout

By Karoli Kuns

 

Marco Rubio snuck in a quiet announcement that he was suspending his campaign, but he was careful to bury it in a pile of old speeches, much of which he stole from candidate Barack Obama.

Things about being the son of immigrants, and more. He also blamed the conservative movement and the establishment Republicans for this years' season of discontent, before saying he wasn't going to be President in 2016, or maybe ever.

Bet on the ever part, Marco. Your party is dead.

Chris Matthews Suggests Hillary Clinton Pick John Kasich For A Running Mate

By Heather

This is what Chris Matthews sounds like after he's been huffing way too much of that Tip and the Gipper, bipartisan, magical fairy dust during MSNBC's Super Tuesday election coverage.

Apparently Matthews think the potential Democratic nominee for president of the United States needs to pick an anti-choice, anti-labor, trickle-down, gives tax cuts to the rich on the backs of the working class, former Lehman Brothers executive as a running mate in order to get elected.

Thanks for the advice Tweety, but no thanks.

Sorry, Hillary, but we’re done: Keep repeating racist myths and praising Kissinger and the Reagans. I’m switching to Bernie Sanders

I assumed she'd be best candidate against Trump or Cruz. But now she's made herself almost impossible to support

By Paul Campos
 

Hillary Clinton (Credit: AP/Tony Dejak)

I’m sorry Hillary, but I just can’t do this anymore.

If the 2016 presidential campaign were a football game, the Democrats would be heading into it as two-touchdown favorites. Facing a Republican Party that seems to have collectively lost its mind, America’s purportedly liberal party only needs to put forth a minimally competent candidate to win an election in which that candidate will face either a reality TV star who combines ranting racist rhetoric with a bottomless ignorance of every policy question under the sun, or an extreme right-wing religious fanatic.

With the presidential election all but being handed to them, the Democratic Party’s powers that be have almost unanimously decided that Hillary Clinton is liberal America’s best hope to keep the nation from being taken over by right-wing maniacs. (In terms of endorsements, FiveThirtyEight.com’s formula currently has Clinton ahead of Bernie Sanders by a total of 478 to six.

Even the much-reviled Donald Trump has more support among Republican power brokers than Sanders has from Democratic pooh-bahs).

The problem with this decision is that it’s becoming clear that Hillary Clinton is a really bad candidate. I say that not as a Bernie Sanders supporter: my attitude toward the Democratic primary has been that just about the only relevant consideration is the question of whether Clinton or Sanders would be more likely to win the general election, given how catastrophic a GOP win would be.

Until recently, I was assuming that Clinton would be a stronger challenger to either Trump or Cruz, so I was hoping she would win out against Sanders. But I’ve changed my mind about that.

Clinton keeps making serious mistakes – and these mistakes follow a pattern that reveal why she’s making it increasingly difficult for even mildly progressive voters to support her.

Clinton’s latest blunder was her bizarre claim that Nancy and Ronald Reagan played an important role in getting Americans to talk about AIDS in the 1980's: “It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about H.I.V./AIDS back in the 1980's,” Clinton told MSNBC. “And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan – in particular, Mrs. Reagan – we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it. Nobody wanted anything to do with it.”

This is not merely false, but the precise inverse of the truth. Ronald Reagan managed to avoid ever mentioning the AIDS epidemic for the first several years of his presidency. The famous activist slogan “Silence = Death” was coined in response to the Reagan administration’s studied refusal to even acknowledge the epidemic. Indeed, the Reagans “started a national conversation” about AIDS in the same sense that Donald Trump has started a national conversation about the extent to which racism characterizes much of the Republican Party’s base.

Clinton’s surreal historical revisionism – which she walked back after a firestorm of criticism – is typical of the eagerness with which she embraces even the most dubious figures, as long as they are members of what my colleague Scott Lemieux calls America’s “overcompensated and under performing elites.”

For example, Clinton continues to cozy up to Henry Kissinger, and to the same bankers who came close to wrecking the world economy just a few years ago, shortly before they started paying her millions of dollars to give speeches to them.

A few weeks ago she repeated the racist myth that “radical” Northerners imposed corrupt governments on the defeated South after the Civil War, and thus paved the way for Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan. This week she engaged in some good old-fashioned red-baiting, criticizing Sanders for opposing America’s sordid history of dirty wars in Latin America, which she mis-characterized as his support for Communist dictatorships.

All of this is both wrong as a matter of principle, and stupid politics to boot. How many votes does she think she’s going to get from (increasingly imaginary) “moderate Republicans” as a consequence of this 1990's-style triangulation? Not nearly as many as she’ll lose among disgusted liberals, who remember that the Contras were terrorists, that Kissinger is a war criminal of the first order, that Reconstruction didn’t cause the virulent racism that undermined it, and that the Reagans’ silence regarding AIDS contributed to countless unnecessary deaths.

I will, of course, vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee – she is after all vastly preferable to either Trump or Cruz – but by now this is starting to feel like pointing out that a sprained ankle is preferable to a heart attack.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Anonymous Just Declared ‘Total War’ on Donald Trump

Read more: http://usuncut.com/news/anonymous-vs-trump/