-
Left-Right Alliance for Closing U.S. Military Bases Around the World
“At the U.S. Capitol, on Thursday afternoon, “military experts from across the ideological spectrum will hold a public event to release an open letter arguing for the closure of wasteful, damaging, and unneeded U.S. military bases abroad. … Consensus is growing around a long-overlooked but crucial part of how the United States engages with the world: the nearly 75-year-old strategy of maintaining some 800 U.S. military bases in 80 foreign countries.”
-
Will Sen. Sanders Press for Peace?
“Military spending is well over 60 percent of discretionary spending. A public policy that avoids mentioning its existence is not a public policy at all. Should military spending go up or down or remain unchanged? This is the very first question. We are dealing here with an amount of money at least comparable to what could be obtained by taxing the wealthy and corporations (something we are certainly in favor of as well).”
-
Will Senate Move to Stop U.S. Backing for Saudi War on Yemen?
-
Incentives for Ukraine Crisis
“On the Russia side, Moscow has not given a valid reason for opening fire on — and seizing — the three Ukrainian ships. That also is a problem. Past four years of this conflict has been mostly he-said-she-said, but here is a clear case of Russia seizing ships — they should be providing reasons.” He also notes that Putin’s popularity has “taken a big hit” recently “after backing unpopular pension reform.”
-
Dems Eye Hawkish Eliot Engel to Chair House Foreign Affairs Committee
“In order to frighten Americans into supporting a U.S. takeover of Iraq, Engel falsely claimed just prior to the 2002 war authorization vote to invade Iraq that the Iraqi government was still producing chemical and biological weapons. He was among a rightwing minority of Congressional Democrats who voted to authorize the illegal, unnecessary, and predictably tragic U.S. invasion of that oil-rich country.”
-
Trump’s “Nuclear Option” Against a Free Press: What Paved the Way?
“If journalists and publishers fail to call this out, denounce and resist it — on the spurious grounds that Julian is ‘not a real journalist’ like themselves — they’re offering themselves up to Trump and Sessions for indictments and prosecutions, which will eventually silence all but the heroes and heroines among them.”
-
Which Way for the Democrats: Oligarchy or Progressive Policies?
“The midterm election results have made Nancy Pelosi the likely next House speaker. Although habitually bashed by Fox News and other right-wing outlets as an ultra-liberal villain, Pelosi has declared allegiance to fiscal centrism and ongoing militarism that forecloses implementing a progressive political agenda.”
-
Amazon Deal Taxpayer Costs “Far Understated, Exceed $4.6 Billion”
“The taxpayer costs of these two deals is high, both in absolute terms and on a per job basis, contrary to Amazon’s artful spin. Together, we believe they exceed $4.6 billion and the cost per job in New York is at least $112,000, not the $48,000 the company used in a selective and incomplete press release calculation.”
-
Paul Ryan Tries to Keep Saudi Attack on Yemen Going
“Tuesday evening, in a classic Nixonian dirty tricks maneuver of the Washington swamp, Paul Ryan’s House Rules Committee approved a rule for consideration of H.R. 6784, the ‘Manage our Wolves Act,’ that would ‘de-privilege’ H. Con. Res. 138, the Khanna-Massie-Smith-Jones-Pocan Yemen War Powers Resolution to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi regime’s war-blockade-famine-genocide in Yemen.
-
Amazon HQ2: “Massive Transfer of Wealth from Taxpayers to Shareholders”
“We don’t know the cost per job. But we do know that both deals were negotiated in secret, without any public input. We also know that past U.S. ‘megadeals’ have cost an average of $658,000 per job. At that price, taxpayers can never come close to breaking even. Such deals convey a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to shareholders.”
Blog
“With a tiny staff, it has managed to place on the air and in newspapers, points of view otherwise excluded from the national debate.”
Howard Zinn