David Rosen, CounterPunch: Every 25 seconds someone is arrested for possessing drugs for their own use, amounting to 1.25 million arrests per year. These numbers tell a tale of ruined lives, destroyed families, and communities suffering under a suffocating police presence. The war-on-drugs is a punitive, vindictive form of policing, criminal justice and imprisonment. It's easy to be tough on those involved in mostly a victimless crime, drug use. Cops pick the easiest target, notably inner-city minority youth and rural white youth; prosecutors show off how tough they are by "throwing the book" at some hapless soul; and judges get easily re-elected for being tough on drug criminals, especially people of color and repeat offenders. Hundreds of thousands of people are convicted, cycle through jails and prisons, and spend extended periods on probation and parole, often burdened with crippling debt from court-imposed fines and fees. read more
Russia offered to negotiate a "cyber" treaty to mutually eliminate hacking. The USA refused.
The Clinton campaign says that WikiLeaks is working to alter the outcome of the November election, yet simultaneously claims that nothing "earth shattering" is being revealed.
If the Clinton claims of election-altering intent on the part of WikiLeaks is credible, then the aggressive anti-Russian posturing could imply that truly damaging evidence is yet to be released.
If nothing so consequential unfolds, we must consider the possibility that fomenting escalated conflict and war with Russia may be a foreign policy aim of an incoming Clinton administration.
Are these extraordinary and potentially dangerous escalations designed to distract from more than just "embarrassing revelations", or to set the stage for a ramp-up in US anti-Russian aggression. (Keith Binkly) read more
A system that depends on endless growth without restraints will eventually self-destruct. If the legitimacy of our democratic system is to be maintained, economic policy must benefit the many not the few. A universal basic income would create a situation in which it possible to survive without depending on selling your labor to anyone who will pay for it, making automation a path to liberation, not destitution.
Pointing to the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of the few and acknowledging "the weakness of the proletariat against the centralized state," Orwell was not optimistic about the future, but he was certain that the economic status quo would give way to something new.
The future of capitalism and the future of the planet are intertwined. The health of the latter depends on our ability to dismantle the former, and our ability to construct an alternative that alters our course, which is heading towards catastrophe. (Jake Johnson) read more
The world's premier business newspaper the Financial Times (Japanese owned) says Mao was the worst ever. The worst ever Bernie Sanders?
Mao was a combination of Jesus and Sitting Bull. He scared the physical and metaphysical shit out of the empire and the rich. He did the impossible and outmaneuvered Marx when it came to the peasants. Mao wanted to destroy the rich (especially landlords) and all imperialists. He wanted to recreate China and bet on the poorest of the poor to do it.
Global business gambled when it set up shop in China because with cheap labor came "cheap" communism, one that could catch fire again and burn everything with a dollar sign on it. Capital finds itself in a possible trap. And it knows it. That's why it has been demonizing Mao since his death in 1976. Western experts estimate that Mao caused between 40-70 million deaths in peacetime, more than Hitler and Stalin combined.
The problem with this Western view of Mao is China disagrees. (Aidan O'Brien) read more
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment. (David Swanson) read more