Global

The most likely way to die in a U.S. war, by far, is to live in the country that the United States is attacking. But the most likely way in which a U.S. participant in a war will die is by suicide.

There are a couple of widely observed top causes of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops returning from recent wars deeply disturbed in their minds. One is having been near an explosion. Another, which has been around longer than explosions have, is having killed, having nearly died, having seen blood and gore and suffering, having imposed death and suffering on innocents, having seen comrades die in agony, exacerbated in many cases by having lost faith in the sales pitch that launched the war -- in other words, the horror of war making.

Buy this book $15 at the Free Press store

The Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft

By Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman

"The 'strip and flip' technique of controlling electronic elections can easily apply to citizens of all faiths and color. But in the US, race has been the critical tool for dividing the populace. It’s the bottom-line basic instrument that makes electronic election theft possible." ~ Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis 

"What had happened between 2000 and 2004 was the Help America Vote Act. Meant to correct problems with Florida paper punch-card ballots, it was fraud capacity disguised as reform. It encouraged the buying of electronic voting systems as the solution to federal mandates. The hope that true reformists had was that computers would prove colorblind. Instead, computer counting made us blind. We no longer see our votes being counted. As in any darkness, nefarious schemes are much easier to accomplish." ~ Mimi Kennedy, in the Introduction

Come on, they aren’t tanks, they’re armored rescue vehicles. And the, uh, grenade launchers would only be used to launch teargas canisters. When necessary. And the M-16s? Standard police issue.

What a journey these Los Angeles teenagers, and the civil rights group Fight for the Soul of the Cities, had, to get from there — the ho-hum justification by (good Lord) the city’s school district police force, for the accumulation of surplus Defense Department weaponry — to here:

“Our recent meeting and dialogue has led me to review my actions as Board President during this difficult period. Upon reflection, I failed to understand the amount of pain and frustration our participation in the 1033 program could cause in the community and especially with our partners from the Dignity in Schools Campaign and the Fight for the Soul of the Cities. . . .”

Hillary Clinton and her DNC status-quo flunkies ignore the reality that both the Donald Trump and the Bernie Sanders candidacies make clear. The United States is entering a thus-far nonviolent populist rebellion against a corrupt-to-the-core oligarchy. In this paradigmatic battle between the common good and the greedy corporate elite, it would be a catastrophic failure for Americans to allow the populist mantle of a Political Revolution to be carried and defined by the hateful demagogue Donald Trump. Currently, Sanders is the only figure in a position to carry that positive populist banner to victory.

Regardless of how much lipstick is slapped on an establishment pig, come November (and beyond) millions of people are going to choose change. Depending upon their options, they will either vote for a challenger to the status quo who best reflects there complaints and aspirations, or they will choose not to vote at all. So, despite Clinton’s recent shift in tone and her gradual, disingenuous and unbelievable makeover on the issues, her candidacy could never stand in for Sanders.

Most Hillary Clinton supporters, including Hillary, mostly spend their time talking about Trump, not Clinton, not Sanders, not what should be done in the U.S. government. But they don't try to articulate a defense for this practice. A couple of obvious reasons (which they would not want to articulate) come to mind: (1) Hillary is incredibly unpopular, (2) Talking about Trump fuels the pretense that the primary is over.

For many people, summer is a time for beach vacations and hiking trips. But for us, it’s convention season. And while some of Columbus’ regular cons are traditionally held in the off-season — Ohayocon in the midwinter cold, and Marcon over Memorial Day weekend — the next three months will keep us busy with gaming, cosplay and even the delightful smell of old paperbacks.
 

The biggest of them all is Origins Game Fair, which is coming to the Greater Columbus Convention Center from June 15th-19th. Origins is one of the biggest tabletop gaming cons in the country, and with exhibitors both big and small in attendance it’s a great place to see what’s available to play now and what’s coming soon. In addition to a gaming and panel schedule so dense it’s offered as a massive spreadsheet (with a door-stopper of a print version available at the show), this year they’re presenting the first Origins Film Festival, showcasing independent films related to sci-fi/fantasy and gaming.

Islamophobia has become a significant factor driving politics in many western countries.

Islamophobia – fear of Muslims – is now highly visible among European populations concerned about terrorist responses from Islamic groups claiming Jihadi links. However, it is also evident among those same populations in relation to the refugee flow from the Middle East. In addition, Islamophobia is highly evident among sectors of the US population during the presidential race. It is a significant issue in Australia. Outside the West, even the (Muslim) Rohingya in Burma are feared by Buddhist monks and others.

Given that this widespread western fear of Muslims was not the case prior to the US-instigated 'War on Terror', do Muslims around the world now pose a greater threat to western interests than previously? Or is something else going on here?

In short, why are so many westerners (and others) now frightened of Muslims? Let me start at the beginning.

Donald Trump has now won the delegates needed to give him the Republican presidential nomination. The Bernie Sanders surge continues — he may even win California — but Hillary Clinton apparently has the superdelegate support needed to give her the nomination. We’re headed to a presidential race with two candidates burdened with record levels of disfavor.

This leads to the widespread expectation of a spitball brawl for a campaign. Trump has already begun branding Clinton. The Clinton campaign has begun attacking Trump as reckless and unqualified. A negative campaign of branded insults will drive down turnout. It would be a disservice to this country and its people.

President Obama went to Hiroshima, did not apologize, did not state the facts of the matter (that there was no justification for the bombings there and in Nagasaki), and did not announce any steps to reverse his pro-nuke policies (building more nukes, putting more nukes in Europe, defying the nonproliferation treaty, opposing a ban treaty, upholding a first-strike policy, spreading nuclear energy far and wide, demonizing Iran and North Korea, antagonizing Russia, etc.).

Where Obama is usually credited -- and the reason he's usually given a pass on his actual actions -- is in the area of rhetoric. But in Hiroshima, as in Prague, his rhetoric did more harm than good. He claimed to want to eliminate nukes, but he declared that such a thing could not happen for decades (probably not in his lifetime) and he announced that humanity has always waged war (before later quietly claiming that this need not continue).