Revealed: rightwing groups plot to ditch EU safety standards on food and drugs

‘Ideal’ UK-US trade deal would see banned products sold in post-Brexit Britain, says accidentally released memo

An unprecedented drive to lobby ministers to ditch strict EU safety standards in order to secure a US trade deal is being drawn up by a transatlantic group of conservative thinktanks, it has emerged.

Organisers of the self-styled “shadow trade talks”, which are set to include 10 leading rightwing and libertarian groups from the UK and the US, are preparing to push their “ideal free trade agreement” that would allow the import of US meats, drugs and chemicals banned in Britain.

Continue reading…

Has #MeToo Gone Too Far?

Reminds me of 1960 “leaders” who thought Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was too radical – until SNCC, Rap Brown and Malcolm X showed up. And still racism rules in US. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was thought too radical, until working class woman got involved in women’s rights and sexism still rules in US. If we wonder if has gone too far and caution women to chill – wait until the next group shows up, you will be wanting mainstream to come back. Racists, sexists, Nazis, Fundamentalists will not go away by being nice. metoo gone too far

metoo gone too farBefore you try to scratch my eyeballs out, please hear me out (and read the entire article before making any judgement). . .

Without a doubt, I condemn in the strongest terms anyone who has sexually harassed, physically attacked, and/or raped any individual. Such people, when found guilty must lose their jobs, pay meaningful restitution, and go to jail! I have no sympathy for them.

I do understand there are women who are in fear of losing their jobs and whose support depends solely on their own income. I empathize with the situation in which they find themselves that seems to offer no viable alternatives. However, I am also very dismayed when women are being depicted as being too weak and too easily intimidated to stand up for themselves. Victims must understand that there are viable alternative actions–silence while waiting for someone else to speak up first is not the answer.

The mere fact that someone feels “uncomfortable” from words, gestures, actions by others ought not be enough to persecute or prosecute. is important and is in part helping and teaching women how to confront and/or report their tormenters. Yet I think of the waitress who was cornered in a hallway by a prominent Hollywood producer but never called for help or tried to push past him or fight or kick, of even later file a report. Her job was not on the line; her employment did not depend on pleasing that perverted film mogul. So why didn’t she react differently?

When women today are fighting to be treated as equals; as independent, strong-minded, decisive people, as individuals who can think quickly and be prepared to resolve issues–how can they turn around and claim weakness and inability to act?

What about the actress who has gone on numerous talk shows describing how that same producer pushed her into his hotel bathroom, disrobed her, sat her down on the edge of the tub, and then put his face between her legs? What was she doing all that time? He wasn’t beating her up or threatening her life. She and too many others claim they froze and couldn’t think how to respond and never even filed a report later. She claims her desire to move up in the film world took precedence over defending herself.

When women today are fighting to be treated as equals; as independent, strong-minded, decisive people, as individuals who can think quickly and be prepared to resolve issues–how can they turn around and claim weakness and inability to act?

Put yourself in their shoes, you ask. Well, I have. Have I had to fight off a perpetrator? I have done that as well, so I know of which I speak!

I am outraged when I read about the horrendous actions perpetrated by people who hold high political office or executive positions. At the same time, we seem to overlook the people in less visible positions that are equally guilty of egregious acts against women. Their acts are not being covered (at least to the same extent) even though what they do is far more prevalent than the actions of the rich and famous. We cannot allow that category of perpetrators to get a pass.

In the meantime, what we are also doing is throwing those whose actions and intentions are innocent (though at times misguided and rather juvenile) to be thrown under the bus. We can’t throw out the baby with the bath water. I think of the teacher friend who was accused by a young female student of inappropriate sexual contact. He lost his position until it was learned that the girl resented her failing grade in his class and wanted revenge. His reputation in the school community was never quite repaired.

What about Al Franken? He was open to a full investigation but his fellows were more worried about appearances than getting at the truth. If the Dems wanted Republicans to force out their own members accused of alleged unspeakable crimes against women, the thinking went that the Dems would have to be the first to step up to the plate. I can understand that thinking, but due process should have been part-and-parcel of decision-making. Personally, I don’t think childish pranks where no one has really been harmed (except feelings, perhaps) should lead to a loss of job or reputation.

What about actors like James Franco and Aziz Ansari? The former founded two master-class studios where one offering was how to be nude on camera (not a required course). Wouldn’t you think that if you sign up for such a class, you would be expected to take your top off or be nude altogether? If one is on a date (in Ansari’s case), wouldn’t one expect that at some point there might be a make-out session? This is, after all, the 21st century with 21st century morés (for better or worse). Are we expected to behave like the Ozzi and Harriet stereotype–which was so unrealistic in the first place and set unrealistic expectations and standards? Are we to act on a date like nuns and priests? Aren’t we teaching men that No means No and if that “command” is ignored, he can indeed be accused of a crime.

I am reminded of the movie, Pleasantville, where everything was in stark black and white until people began to be in touch with their true feelings, after which the starkness was replaced with brilliant color. There was initial blowback by many characters who felt threatened and wanted to maintain the status quo? But eventually everyone came to realize that bold color is far preferable to black and white. Such color does not have to lead to ugly behavior.

But I digress. . .

We cannot be co-conspirators in victimizing the innocent without sufficiently castigating the guilty. We must not dilute the worthiness of the cause to the point that the general public becomes jaded and believes nothing without pictures and tapes (and might even misinterpret those). It is the Rob Porters of the world and the Donald Trumps who must be forced to resign due to unforgiveable behaviors. We cannot punish some and exonerate others based solely on political loyalties and leanings. We must follow a moral compass equally applied to all but that “all” must be limited to genuine transgressors, not to those who hug too often or joke too frequently.

So we have to ask ourselves, In what direction is the campaign headed? Are the guilty and innocent going to be equally swept up without differentiation or a measured approach? Are we going to regret precipitous actions taken on our part? Are we going to be afraid to interact with each other with honest affection and admiration?

As for me, I shall always disdain evil perpetrators of every shape and form. And yet, I shall embrace the hugs of a Bob Hertzberg and the light-hearted flattery of a male friend and the joking banter of a co-worker. Why? Because all those actions are nice and feel good and because I know where my line is, and others know by knowing me just how “comfortable” they can get without crossing it.

I admire the Campaign and support it. It should grow in meaningful and productive ways. Yet, like any other movement, we cannot let it get away from its founding purpose. Women and girls must be empowered to stand up for themselves and others, but we must equally keep in mind that all accusations have consequences. For the public to feel empathy and share our rage and demand justice for victims, allegations must be legitimate and serious or we shall lose the ground that has been recently made, causing two steps back instead of two steps forward.

Rosemary Jenkins

The post Has #MeToo Gone Too Far? appeared first on LA Progressive.

Speaker Paul Ryan’s Comments on Mass Shootings: Chris Hayes Rolls “Supercut”

ICYM Chris Hayes ran a “Supercut” of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s comments on current and past mass shootings in America.

He’s parroting NRA talking points are breath-taking, and really illustrate the GOP’s stance on guns, and their blatant disregard for victims of the ugly mass shootings and murders.

“Second Amendment rights,” “Mental Illness,” “Not the time for Knee-jerk reactions,” Take a break and collect the fact,” “We want to protect law-abiding citizens”

Sounds familiar?

Speaker Paul Ryan is the top recipient of NRA contributions.

Paul Ryan:  $171,977, Republican
Wisconsin, District 1 18

Look here for NRA contributions to top GOP LAWMAKERS

Anyone beholden to the NRA, are never going to serve the greater good for Americans’ safety from these weapons of war killing innocent children and other Americans.

Dear Mr. President: Shooting You a Very ‘Special’ Valentine

trump gun industry

trump gun industryFriday, 16 February 2017

Dear Mr President,

Happy Valentines Day, Mr President – not really from me, of course – but relayed by me from your true love, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, and relayed by him from all your secret lovers in the American gun industry, from all those Dear-Hearts at Colt, Sturm Ruger, Remington, Smith & Wesson, Browning, Bushmaster, Adams, Mossberg, Savage, SCCY, Springfield, UWS, Winchester, and Weatherby for whom you’ve helped make this Valentines Day so “special”. That would be your word, wouldn’t it?

The shootings in Parkland (like all such shootings, from Sandy Hook to Las Vegas) will send gun sales climbing as frightened citizens rush to protect themselves and will send gun stocks soaring as smug investors see opportunities to profit from the dead kids.

It’s occasions like this that make all your hearts beat a little faster and the testosterone pump a little stronger – all powered by the flow of money. The shootings in Parkland (like all such shootings, from Sandy Hook to Las Vegas) will send gun sales climbing as frightened citizens rush to protect themselves and will send gun stocks soaring as smug investors see opportunities to profit from the dead kids.

So the gun manufacturers will see that they’re getting good value and will blow wet kisses (and mail fat checks) to Wayne (who doesn’t fill the NRA’s coffers with the dues of members – not by a long semi-automatic rifle shot). And warmed with fuzzy feelings for all his paramours in Congress (both Democrat and Republican), Wayne will send them all little love-tokens too. And you, his prize, his mistress who doesn’t have a NDA, indeed, his harlot who gets paid for confessing whom you’re in bed with – you’ll get flowers and chocolates and promises of re-election.

Of course, you’ll all put on long faces and platitudes about thoughts and prayers, our hearts go out, come together for a better tomorrow, feeling other’s pain, now is not the time, etc. etc. –  did I mention thoughts and prayers? But in the boardroom and on the golf course, there’ll be smiles all round, as you and your valentines find that with a little effort you can bear the sacrifice of those kids and the pain of their parents. You’ll shed a public tear and count the cash in private.

So this day’s for you. You’ve earned it.

Dan Embree

Received by the White House at 03:58 AM EST, 16 February 2018

The post Dear Mr. President: Shooting You a Very ‘Special’ Valentine appeared first on LA Progressive.

As corruption cases close in, Netanyahu will move further right to survive

Netanyahu is already painting the police recommendation to indict him as a political witch hunt. That will have significant consequences on how the attorney general proceeds, and what Israel’s second-longest serving prime minister does to survive.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a cabinet meeting, January 21, 2018. (Alex Kolomoisky/POOL)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a cabinet meeting, January 21, 2018. (Alex Kolomoisky/POOL)

The Israeli police on Tuesday recommended indicting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in two corruption cases, referred to as Case 1000 and Case 2000. In Case 1000, Netanyahu is suspected of trying to advance the interests of Israeli tycoon Arnon Milchen in exchange for lavish gifts he and his wife demanded; in Case 2000, Netanyahu was recorded plotting to pursue regulatory changes that would have assisted the daily paper Yedioth Ahronoth in exchange for “indefinite” positive coverage, as promised by the paper’s publisher, Arnon Mozes. Netanyahu is suspected of receiving or being offered bribes in both cases.

[tmwinpost]

Netanyahu doesn’t deny the facts, only the police’s interpretation of them. In a live message Tuesday evening, he tried to rally his base by claiming (as he has in the past) that he is the victim of politically motivated attacks. He also vowed not to resign. Tuesday’s big news – the involvement of Yair Lapid, Netanyahu’s main political rival, as a key witness for the prosecution in Case 1000 – assists Bibi in politicizing the discourse around the affair even further.

So what’s next for Bibi?

The decision whether to press charges lies in the hands of the Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who will likely take months to consider the evidence, maybe even a full year. Theoretically, Mandelblit could make up his mind much sooner, since the prosecution was involved in the police investigation from its inception, as it does in high profile cases – but this is unlikely for legal and political reasons alike.

If Mandelblit presses charges, the assumption is that Bibi’s coalition partners would resign, leading to early elections. But the common wisdom is that if Bibi senses an indictment coming he will call snap elections. Mandelblit won’t be able to announce his decision during a campaign – for fear of tipping the elections, and once Bibi wins, it will be politically difficult for the attorney general to press charges at all (if Netanyahu loses it won’t matter anyway). On the other hand, if the public pressure against Bibi intensifies, things might move faster.

Personally, I don’t see how Mandelblit can avoid pressing charges without it being seen as a cover-up. A decision not to indict would almost certainly be challenged in the High Court, and it could doom the attorney general’s own aspirations (to serve on the Supreme Court, like many of his predecessors). Lest we forget, Netanyahu is tied (though not a formal suspect yet) to a couple more investigations, much broader in scope – Case 3000, dealing with attempts to influence contracts for the purchase of submarines from Germany (Bibi’s most intimate proxies – attorneys Shimron and Molcho – are the key figures here), and Case 4000, involving regulatory changes in favor of the telecom giant Bezeq. It’s simply too much.

Mandelblit wants to avoid being seen as the man who took down a popular prime minister. He would much rather let the political process work, hoping that Bibi’s coalition falls apart or that he loses an election before he is forced to make a final decision about whether to indict. That way, Mandelblit would end up prosecuting Netanyahu as a private citizen. But judging from Netanyahu’s appearance yesterday, that scenario is unlikely: Bibi will do all he can to keep his coalition together for the time being.

The key for Netanyahu’s strategy is his popularity on the right. As long as he maintains high approval ratings among his base, none of his rivals from the right will come out against him, out of fear of political revenge from his supporters.

Which leads us to the broader implications of the recent developments: since Netanyahu’s survival now depends on his most loyal base, he is likely to move even further to the right politically – both with regards to the Israeli culture war, and on the Palestinian issue. These are going to be rocky years ahead.